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: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
... there are two lenses so good that I never bothered buying a Zeiss 4/80-200 for myself (although I have used a friend's and it is really excellent).

1. the Minolta AF 'beer can' 4/70-210. Just a wonderful lens, owned one since 1993 and adore it. Wonderful colours, very nice rendering, always sharp enough, works perfectly on my a850.

That's in fact a very good f4 tele zoom lens. It has the same optical construction as the MD 4/70-210mm, and it was developed in cooperation with Leitz, since allegedly the germans weren't that happy with the previous Minolta tele zooms. It's construction (lens section) is extremely similar to other contemporary tele zoom lenses, namely to the second version of the Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm (1977). In fact most good tele zooms from that time (around 1980-1985) share a similar construction. Nearly always the master lens of these tele zoom is the same a four lens construction, pioneered by Nikon in 1977. You'll find that also in the Konica AR 4/80-200mm (non-UC)


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

2. Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200. If I need a zoom of this range on a mirrorless camera, I use this one. Only issue with it is how huge and heavy it is, but the IQ makes up for it.

Actually the Konica UC Zoom-Hexanon 4/80-200 has the same size as the MinAF 4/70-210mm, and is only a tad eavier (840g vs 720g). However the Konica Hexanon AR 3.5/80-200mm is a huge and heavy (1180g) lens. I have checked three samples of the AR 3.5/80-200mm. They gave wildly varying results, but none of them was convincing. The AR 80-200mm (also three sample compared) had less sample variation and generally a better IQ. However, since its basic construction is very similar to the early Nikkor 4.5/80-200mm and Minolta MC 4.5/80-200mm lenses, it doesn't shine when comparing it with the newer (1980 ca.) Nikon/Minolta constructions.


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I might hold onto the Vivitar S1 4/70-210 as it's in Nikon mount ad I have several Nikon bodies.

Why not a nice AiS Nikkor 4.5/80-200 or even the AiS 4/70-210mm? They are sold for less than CHF 100.--, not too big, and probably better than most (or all) Vivitar series 70-210mm MF tele zooms. BTW which one do you intend to to get? There are quite a few different versions: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-series-1-70-210-line.html

The Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is a later lens; it has essentially the same lens section as the Leitz APO-Vario-Elmarit-R 2.8/70-180mm. That's quite understandable: The CY 4/80-200mm was designed by the young Lothar Kölsch at Zeiss, before he went to Leitz. There, under his supervision, the APO-R 70-180 was calculated by a young lady as her first Leica lens ...

S.

Last edited by stevemark on Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:02 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



Yes, the one with the sunken element is quite good, in a group test published in the early 1980s by the German magazine ColorFoto, it was directly behind the OEM zooms made by Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Pentax, together with the identical Hoya HMC 70-150 mm f/3.8. BTW, Hoya lenses of that time are still widely neglected, even though they had a complete line of lenses that were optically and mechanically the same as the corresponding Tokina SL lenses (just the finish was slightly different...)

Volker


PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

The Canon nFD 80-200L isn't really shining when it comes to monochromatic aberrations at f4 ... f5.6 (the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is much better in this regard). However, since CAs are corrected so well (one fluorite and one ULD lens), the overall image quality at f11 is quite stunning - apart from distortion of course.

S


I've made the experience that Canon FD lenses, and especially zoom lenses and lenses equipped with floating, IF and RF elements, are affected by a high degree of sample variation, due to rotten roller bearings. Even though, I guess that my 80-200 L incorporates "standard" roller bearings without problems (all the push-pull zooms I repaired up to now are like that...., there might be a reason why your sample is less well corrected. I've seen some comparisons you've made and I'm sure that my 80-200 L lens behaves much better than yours at wider apertures.

Volker


Interesting - could you please provide us with some 100% corner crops (full frame) from your Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L lens, either at 24 MP FF or at 43 MP FF? Thank you Wink

Stephan


I finally found a few minutes (and a heat-wave free day...) to do some corner tests of the Canon FD 80-200L @200 mm and f/4 :

Following is a screenshot of a 200% view in Photoshop, the same detail has been put in the extreme lower right corner (left) and in the center of the frame. The camera used was a Sony 7R (36 Mpix) in Raw format, the two pictures have been "developed" in Camera Raw at default values for sharpening. Automatic CA correction was ON.



Even though there is a certain loss of contrast and resolution in the left corner frame, I find that the IQ is still excellent and much, much better than most if not all tele zoom lenses of the early and mid-1980s which have to be closed to f/8 or f/11 to produce roughly comparable results in the extreme corner and at the longest focal length.

LG

Volker


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How's the field curvature?

Often it's not so much the ability to get the corners sharp when you focus on them - but the problem is that you can't get the center and the corners sharp at the same time because of the field curvature. And that you have to stop down because of that, not because the corners are "inherently unsharp".


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had two copies of the Canon 70-150 , two copies of the Minolta 75-150 and the CY 70-200/4. Technically the Zeiss is the best but it is so bulky that I rarely used it and never took it on trips. All copies of Minolta and Canon were crooked to some extent. Minolta is more convenient to use, Canon is better with an open diaphragm.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="hasenbein"]How's the field curvature?

Often it's not so much the ability to get the corners sharp when you focus on them - but the problem is that you can't get the center and the corners sharp at the same time because of the field curvature. And that you have to stop down because of that, not because the corners are "inherently unsharp".[/quote]

Do you refer to my message? In terms of field curvature, the 80-200 L behaves as it should, both images have been taken with the same focus adjustment.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:


I finally found a few minutes (and a heat-wave free day...) to do some corner tests of the Canon FD 80-200L @200 mm and f/4 :

Following is a screenshot of a 200% view in Photoshop, the same detail has been put in the extreme lower right corner (left) and in the center of the frame. The camera used was a Sony 7R (36 Mpix) in Raw format, the two pictures have been "developed" in Camera Raw at default values for sharpening. Automatic CA correction was ON.



Even though there is a certain loss of contrast and resolution in the left corner frame, I find that the IQ is still excellent and much, much better than most if not all tele zoom lenses of the early and mid-1980s which have to be closed to f/8 or f/11 to produce roughly comparable results in the extreme corner and at the longest focal length.

LG

Volker


Thanks for providing these images / crops. One question: at what distance did you take this inmages approximately?

he nFD 4/80-200mm L is excellent around 100-120mm, but at f=200mm and infinity (!) my copy must be stopped down to f8 or f11 to get really sharp FF corners. I know from the Nikkor 4/80-200mm (an extremely expensive lens) that its performance was optimized for lower distances, not for infinity. Was that the case also for the nFD 4/80-200mm L?

S

PS i just got a second sample of the nFD 5.6/100-300mm L, to compare it with my less-than-stellar first copy. And I was offered also the second version of the nFD 5.6/100-300mm (same modern style focusing grip as the nFD 80-200mm L and nFD 100-300mm L). Does this nFD 100-300mm Var II have the same optical construction as the earlier nFD 5.6/100-300mm?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:


I finally found a few minutes (and a heat-wave free day...) to do some corner tests of the Canon FD 80-200L @200 mm and f/4 :

Following is a screenshot of a 200% view in Photoshop, the same detail has been put in the extreme lower right corner (left) and in the center of the frame. The camera used was a Sony 7R (36 Mpix) in Raw format, the two pictures have been "developed" in Camera Raw at default values for sharpening. Automatic CA correction was ON.



Even though there is a certain loss of contrast and resolution in the left corner frame, I find that the IQ is still excellent and much, much better than most if not all tele zoom lenses of the early and mid-1980s which have to be closed to f/8 or f/11 to produce roughly comparable results in the extreme corner and at the longest focal length.

LG

Volker


Thanks for providing these images / crops. One question: at what distance did you take this inmages approximately?

he nFD 4/80-200mm L is excellent around 100-120mm, but at f=200mm and infinity (!) my copy must be stopped down to f8 or f11 to get really sharp FF corners. I know from the Nikkor 4/80-200mm (an extremely expensive lens) that its performance was optimized for lower distances, not for infinity. Was that the case also for the nFD 4/80-200mm L?

S

PS i just got a second sample of the nFD 5.6/100-300mm L, to compare it with my less-than-stellar first copy. And I was offered also the second version of the nFD 5.6/100-300mm (same modern style focusing grip as the nFD 80-200mm L and nFD 100-300mm L). Does this nFD 100-300mm Var II have the same optical construction as the earlier nFD 5.6/100-300mm?


Hello Stephan,
the distance was approximately 50 meters so not far from infinity. Regarding the corners at infinity and f = 200 mm, I'm more optimistic than you since my copy seems to be very well corrected at the longest focal length
Wink - sample variation?

Regarding the nFD 100-300 mm f/5.6 without special glass (non L), the Canon Handbuch written by Bob Shell (with data by Chuck Westfall, Canon USA) cites two different versions: the first (*1980) has 14 elements in 9 groups and the second (*1985) 15 elements in 9 groups. The latter has basically the same optical scheme as the L version, minus the special glass element.

Greetings

Volker


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hasenbein wrote:
How's the field curvature?

Often it's not so much the ability to get the corners sharp when you focus on them - but the problem is that you can't get the center and the corners sharp at the same time because of the field curvature. And that you have to stop down because of that, not because the corners are "inherently unsharp".

This is a fine observation and I totally agree with it!

A good manual zoom in this regard is Osawa mark II 70-210mm f4. Much better if used between f5.6 and f 9. Beware: very sensitive focus. Compact lens. Very low CA.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

Hello Stephan,
the distance was approximately 50 meters so not far from infinity. Regarding the corners at infinity and f = 200 mm, I'm more optimistic than you since my copy seems to be very well corrected at the longest focal length
Wink - sample variation?

Your images are a bit difficult to judge since they were blown up to 200% (and therefore obviously don't look good at first glance).
Here are two 100% crops from the center and the corner of a 43 MP jpg - still the nFD 80-200L at 200mm f4, but this time at a shooting distance of about 10 m instead of infinity:



Looks quite good to me.

Here again the nFD 80-200L at 200mm f4 at infinity:



Then the nFD 5.6/100-300mm L at 200mm f5.6:


So there's quite a difference between my sample of the 80-200L and 100-300L. However the 100-300L clearly has its sweet spot around f=200mm; at 100mm the corners are quite dismal, and at 300mm there are considerable lateral CAs.

Alsatian2017 wrote:

Regarding the nFD 100-300 mm f/5.6 without special glass (non L), the Canon Handbuch written by Bob Shell (with data by Chuck Westfall, Canon USA) cites two different versions: the first (*1980) has 14 elements in 9 groups and the second (*1985) 15 elements in 9 groups. The latter has basically the same optical scheme as the L version, minus the special glass element.


Thank you for this information - i have spotted a nFD 5.6/100-300mm II at a local photo store; probably I'll get it ... just to complete the collection Wink - I already have the nFD 5.6/100-300mm I and the nFD 5.6/100-300mm L ...

S


PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:

Hi Stevemark,

I'm still looking for the 75-150 rokkor, but is very hard to find ,so , is there any 75-200 that would get same sharpness in the FL? Don't really care about weight , but if possible, not much CA, thanks


That's an interesting question, and I'll answer it here on this thread (which is more approriate than the MD 4/200mm thread where you eosted yur question).

Without re-newed testing I suspect that several 70-210mm lenses in the 100 ... 150mm range would result in similar results as the Minolta MD 4/75-150mm, but I've never really compared the MD 75-150mm directly with its 75-200 or 70-210 brethren. I'll have to chose a few and do that during the next days.

That said i know that lenses such as the Mamiya Sekor C 105-210mm or the Sony/Minolta 2.8/70-200mm G are better than the MD 75-150mm, but that's probably not what you want to hear Wink. I know also that the Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I), the big beercan, is quite free from CAs in the 100mm-200mm range (at f=200mm nearly as free fom CAS as the MinAF 2.8/200mm APO G HS).

I'll check the following:

Canon nFD 4/80-200mm and 4/70-210mm
Konica AR 4/80-200mm UC
Mamiya Sekor E 3.8/80-200mm and Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm (for reference)
Minolta MD 4/75-150mm, 4.5/75-200mm and 4/70-210mm, and AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I)
Nikon Ai 4.5(80-200mm and 4/80-200mm
Pentax A 4/70-210mm
Tamron SP 3.5-4/70-210mm (52A)
Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200mm
Vivitar Series 1 3.5/70-210mm (Kiron / 1st version)
Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm

Since the weather is quite unstable right now, it might take a few days until I can do the comparison.

S


PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not just size and weight. Not al 70/80-210/210 range lenses have a very good minimum focus distance. Some stop at 2 meters. There macro focussing options but not all are very convenient or don't work over the entire range.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
It's not just size and weight. Not al 70/80-210/210 range lenses have a very good minimum focus distance. Some stop at 2 meters. There macro focussing options but not all are very convenient or don't work over the entire range.


Canon nFD 4/80-200mm (1.1m) and 4/70-210mm (1.2m)
Konica AR 4/80-200mm UC (0.7m)
Mamiya Sekor E 3.8/80-200mm (1.3m) and Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm (2.5m; for reference)
Minolta MD 4/75-150mm, 4.5/75-200mm (1.2m) and 4/70-210mm (1.1m), and AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I)
Nikon Ai 4.5(80-200mm (1.8m) and 4/80-200mm (1.2m)
Pentax A 4/70-210mm (1.2m)
Tamron SP 3.5-4/70-210mm (52A) (ca. 0.8m / 1:2)
Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200mm (1.8m)
Vivitar Series 1 3.5/70-210mm (Kiron / 1st version)
Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm (1.2m)

Not bad at all !

S


PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes many later zooms had macro incorporated or shorter MFD . Your Vivitar series 1 will go 1:2.2 almost as far as many true macro's that go to 1:2
I made this shot with it (aps-c on a Pentax K-5).

Hay Wagon by The lens profile, on Flickr

wide open
Shouldn't you be somewhere else? by The lens profile, on Flickr

The Komine Version (no. 3) is a much nicer handling lens. Going to 0.8m (100-200mm) without the cumbersome macro switch. Also more compact. But my little Vivitar 70-150 3.8 will go there as well. It is a dwarf compared to the Komine Viv 70-210 and so is the Tamron 20A that will go to 0.7m.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be honest, .my interest is to find a proper zoom for landscapes (affordable) that could help me leave home some of the primes . My son's using a tamron 60-300 with pretty good results , on APSC ,never really tried it on FF , if posible , I would stay away from other expensive adapters/mounts . I do have the ze and haven't seen any good reviews regarding 70-150 ze or others . Mostly ,a 70-200mm FL it would be enough for my needs , also would do any 70-150, but that Minolta is not easy to find nowadays. I know canon nFD are having issues , so I would avoid it directly, but SSC is another story lol, just beautiful build on the 50mm 1.4 . L version is way to pricey and hard to find also, so....what am I missing ? Nikkons series E also hard to find on 70-150, so probably i should do better look into 70-200mm FL?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
After a quick skim through, I did not see the Tamron 103-A 80-210 mentioned.

At distances over 200 meters, the old tamron consistently edges every nikon zoom that I have.

For the closer in stuff- portraits, wildlife, architecture etc, the Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 is a crystal.
I have a final variant AI 80-200 f4 here that I haven't done much with.
It seems to have a bit of a problem with infinity at the 80mm mark.
I do need to get it onto the tripod to try and find out what's going on.
In the mean-time, I'm tempted to store the nikkor 200mm f 4 prime, and start carrying the Tamron.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A few words from my experience.

The nFD 70 150 and Minolta MD 75 150 are excellent.

Often forgotten, the Tamron 46 A and Tokina SZ-X 80 200 4,5 5,6 are excellent. But only in optical computation. Their mechanical execution seems problematic since I bought two copies of each and never had a chance to obtain something different than a slightly tilted focus plane. I wondered if my adapter was at stake but it is not since the tilt direction evolves with focal change. For portrait use they are nevertheless excellent lenses.

My first nFD 70 150 was optically not good. The second was perfect but developed fungus, the third was perfect notwithstanding a wobbling mount.

I bought a nFD 70 210 f4 that is as good as the Canon and Minolta 75 150 within the shared focal range. At 210mm th lens is very good at f8.

I had a Minolta 70 210 f4 with exquisite bokeh but certainly not on par with the 75 150 for sharpness. Only one copy though so there might be more favorable experiences than mine.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
A few words from my experience.

The nFD 70 150 and Minolta MD 75 150 are excellent.

I wondered if my adapter was at stake but it is not since the tilt direction evolves with focal change. For portrait use they are nevertheless excellent lenses.



I have an adaptall-2 to PK adapter that's crooked. It gets progressively worse the wider I go. My 46a seems fine in build. Just the zoom/focus ring that's plastic feels a bit cheap, but the rest of it is metal and tight and smooth. I don't really like it anyway. It feels a bit of a boring lens to me. Extensive write up on Philipreeve.net https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-46a-70-210-mm-f-3-8-4/


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
A few words from my experience.

The nFD 70 150 and Minolta MD 75 150 are excellent.

I wondered if my adapter was at stake but it is not since the tilt direction evolves with focal change. For portrait use they are nevertheless excellent lenses.



I have an adaptall-2 to PK adapter that's crooked. It gets progressively worse the wider I go. My 46a seems fine in build. Just the zoom/focus ring that's plastic feels a bit cheap, but the rest of it is metal and tight and smooth. I don't really like it anyway. It feels a bit of a boring lens to me. Extensive write up on Philipreeve.net https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-46a-70-210-mm-f-3-8-4/


I had no problems with the apparent build of the Tamron and the Tokina. Everything smooth and well assembled. But the tolerances of the alignment of the lenses were not good.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
I have an adaptall-2 to PK adapter that's crooked.


My 103-A came with a P/K adapter. Ick. Very thin plate that can be bent with finger pressure. It seems to be the weak point of the Adapt-all-2 system.
The N-AI adapter seems okay.
If I get jammed up for an adapter, I have a pro-master Adapt-all-2 to Nikon F sans aperture link that seems to work well with both my Tamrons.
I usually use it on the 500 SP "B".

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
I have an adaptall-2 to PK adapter that's crooked.


My 103-A came with a P/K adapter. Ick. Very thin plate that can be bent with finger pressure. It seems to be the weak point of the Adapt-all-2 system.
The N-AI adapter seems okay.
If I get jammed up for an adapter, I have a pro-master Adapt-all-2 to Nikon F sans aperture link that seems to work well with both my Tamrons.
I usually use it on the 500 SP "B".

-D.S.


I do have PK and PKA adaptall-2 adapters tot are ok. I just have to remember on which lens I put the crooked on to use as a rear cap..


PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
I have an adaptall-2 to PK adapter that's crooked.


My 103-A came with a P/K adapter. Ick. Very thin plate that can be bent with finger pressure. It seems to be the weak point of the Adapt-all-2 system.
The N-AI adapter seems okay.
If I get jammed up for an adapter, I have a pro-master Adapt-all-2 to Nikon F sans aperture link that seems to work well with both my Tamrons.
I usually use it on the 500 SP "B".

-D.S.


I do have PK and PKA adaptall-2 adapters tot are ok. I just have to remember on which lens I put the crooked on to use as a rear cap..


You may also consider finding a crooked lens to mount on a crooked adaptor and end up with something decent... Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2022 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
kiddo wrote:

Hi Stevemark,

I'm still looking for the 75-150 rokkor, but is very hard to find ,so , is there any 75-200 that would get same sharpness in the FL? Don't really care about weight , but if possible, not much CA, thanks


That's an interesting question, and I'll answer it here on this thread (which is more approriate than the MD 4/200mm thread where you eosted yur question).

Without re-newed testing I suspect that several 70-210mm lenses in the 100 ... 150mm range would result in similar results as the Minolta MD 4/75-150mm, but I've never really compared the MD 75-150mm directly with its 75-200 or 70-210 brethren. I'll have to chose a few and do that during the next days.

That said i know that lenses such as the Mamiya Sekor C 105-210mm or the Sony/Minolta 2.8/70-200mm G are better than the MD 75-150mm, but that's probably not what you want to hear Wink. I know also that the Minolta AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I), the big beercan, is quite free from CAs in the 100mm-200mm range (at f=200mm nearly as free fom CAS as the MinAF 2.8/200mm APO G HS).

I'll check the following:

Canon nFD 4/80-200mm and 4/70-210mm
Konica AR 4/80-200mm UC
Mamiya Sekor E 3.8/80-200mm and Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm (for reference)
Minolta MD 4/75-150mm, 4.5/75-200mm and 4/70-210mm, and AF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (I)
Nikon Ai 4.5(80-200mm and 4/80-200mm
Pentax A 4/70-210mm
Tamron SP 3.5-4/70-210mm (52A)
Tokina AT-X 2.8/80-200mm
Vivitar Series 1 3.5/70-210mm (Kiron / 1st version)
Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm

Since the weather is quite unstable right now, it might take a few days until I can do the comparison.

S


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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:43 am    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


Sad to read that. I was always happy with your contributions. Crying or Very sad
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3