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 Jun 25, 2020 5:22 pm    Post subject: Four 70-150mm lenses compared with Zeiss CY 80-200mm Reply with quote
In another thread about 150mm lenses a few 70(75)-150mm lenses were mentioned:

Canon nFD 4/70-150mm
Konica Hexanon AR 4/70-150mm
Minolta MD 4/75-150mm
Olympus Zuiko 4/75-150mm

I have compared them at infinity, f=135mm and wide open / f8 (for landscape photography purposes!). The images were taken with the 43MP FF Sony A7RII; thus the sensor is quite demanding on any vintage lens. Please be aware of this while looking at these 100% crops from the extreme corner!!

CLICK AT THE IMAGE TWICE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION!



The Canon nFD 4.5/70-150mm and the Minolta MD 4/75-150mm are outstanding, and so is the Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar CY 4/80-200mm. The Hexanon 4/70-150mm is by far the smallest of these midrange zooms which may explain its inferior performance (i have checked two sample; both perform similarly). The Olympus Zuiko 4/75-150mm is a bit of an enigma to me - I have checked two samples as well (a "silver nose" and a later "black nose"), and both are simply dismal. I don't know if I just was unlucky to get two "lemons", which would be somehow unlikely, or whether this early zoom in fact has sever performance problems. This would be not completely surprising; early zooms from the mid-1960s such as the Minolta Zoom Rokkor 3.5/80-160mm have similar difficulties.

Does anybody else have a Olympus 75-150 which he / she can test on a 43MP Sony A7RII / A7RIII? Any additional information would be appreciated!

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon performs very well compared to the Zeiss!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yep; it's a really excellent lens on FF cameras, even suitable for the high-res variants. However it's pretty large for its limited range and speed! But i wouldn't hesitate to use it for my 50x70 cm calendar images ...


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Minolta 75-150mm f4 and it's my most commonly-used telephoto lens. In addition to the great IQ, I also love the small size and easy handling.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta is simply the best bang for the buck.

While the Zeiss, except going to 200mm, does not have any real advantages over the Minolta, the Minolta shines with less CA, smaller MFD and a really small and compact build. And it seems to be immune to zoom creep.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hasenbein wrote:
The Minolta is simply the best bang for the buck.

While the Zeiss, except going to 200mm, does not have any real advantages over the Minolta, the Minolta shines with less CA, smaller MFD and a really small and compact build. And it seems to be immune to zoom creep.


Are you sure ...?

Carl Zeiss 4/80-200mm MFD: 1.0 m (at all focal lengths)
Minolta MD 4/75-150mm MFD: 1.2 m (at all focal lengths)

Greez Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm pretty sure that Oly 70-150 is faulty, I have one and it is a very good lens.

The Hexanon looks poor compared to my copy too, I don't recall ever seeing that level of CA with mine.

I have only used them on APC-C and film cameras though.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Oly 70-150 is faulty, I have one and it is a very good lens.

The Hexanon looks poor compared to my copy too, I don't recall ever seeing that level of CA with mine.

I have only used them on APC-C and film cameras though.


The far corners is usually where the problems are. And you’d probably only notice on film with really large prints.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hasenbein wrote:
The Minolta is simply the best bang for the buck.


Well, no, it's the Canon, which is still sold at very low prices while the Minolta is quite rare and thus pretty expensive. BTW, I've got the two of them and actually prefer the Minolta which is much smaller with a better MFD.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't remember exactly how much I paid for my Minolta 75-150, but it was around $60-70 USD at a camera shop in Boston.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Oly 70-150 is faulty, I have one and it is a very good lens.

The Hexanon looks poor compared to my copy too, I don't recall ever seeing that level of CA with mine.

I have only used them on APC-C and film cameras though.


The far corners is usually where the problems are. And you’d probably only notice on film with really large prints.


Good point. I can say that on a 14mp NEX-3 the Hexanon 70-150 is very good indeed, very sharp, not quite as sharp as the superb Hexanon 3.2/135 and with overall quite a bit less macro contrast, but more than good enough for my purposes.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nklein wrote:
I can't remember exactly how much I paid for my Minolta 75-150, but it was around $60-70 USD at a camera shop in Boston.


Recent prices for a sample in good state are between 150 and 200 euros in Europe while it is very easy to find the Canon 75-150 for amounts inferior to 50 euros.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
nklein wrote:
I can't remember exactly how much I paid for my Minolta 75-150, but it was around $60-70 USD at a camera shop in Boston.


Recent prices for a sample in good state are between 150 and 200 euros in Europe while it is very easy to find the Canon 75-150 for amounts inferior to 50 euros.


Yes, value for money, the Canon is hard to beat.
T


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Oly 70-150 is faulty, I have one and it is a very good lens.

The Hexanon looks poor compared to my copy too, I don't recall ever seeing that level of CA with mine.

I have only used them on APC-C and film cameras though.


The far corners is usually where the problems are. And you’d probably only notice on film with really large prints.


Good point. I can say that on a 14mp NEX-3 the Hexanon 70-150 is very good indeed, very sharp, not quite as sharp as the superb Hexanon 3.2/135 and with overall quite a bit less macro contrast, but more than good enough for my purposes.


I've found a thorough test of the Hexanon Zoom AR 70-150 mm f/4, published in the 1980s by the French magazine Phot'Argus that confirms Stefan's findings: very good in the center and corners at 70 mm, sharpness drops at longer focal lengths to mediocre and even insufficient levels in the corners. In the center and intermediate regions, sharpness is OK, which explains why you liked the lens on APS-C sensors.The Zuiko 75-150 mm f/4 lens seems to be quite weak as well in the corners at 110 and 150 mm if you interpret the measurements gathered by Phot'Argus and another French magazine, Chasseur d'images. On the other hand, my Minolta MD and Canon FD lenses of the same zoom range are exceptional and as good as my FD 80-200 L in the sharpness department.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:

Yes, value for money, the Canon is hard to beat.


Yep, I got mine for five dollars in 2019.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:

I've found a thorough test of the Hexanon Zoom AR 70-150 mm f/4, published in the 1980s by the French magazine Phot'Argus that confirms Stefan's findings: very good in the center and corners at 70 mm, sharpness drops at longer focal lengths to mediocre and even insufficient levels in the corners. In the center and intermediate regions, sharpness is OK, which explains why you liked the lens on APS-C sensors.

Thanks for this clarification!

Alsatian2017 wrote:

On the other hand, my Minolta MD and Canon FD lenses of the same zoom range are exceptional and as good as my FD 80-200 L in the sharpness department.


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


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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

Last edited by Alsatian2017 on Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:05 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Although I don't know how they would measure up in detailed comparisons, 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.

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.

The Olympus Zuiko 4/65-200 is very good too, but not used it all that much, I just don't like zoom lenses much so don't use them very often.

I probably have another dozen zoom lenses in this range, they sit unused, I probably should sell them. I might hold onto the Vivitar S1 4/70-210 as it's in Nikon mount ad I have several Nikon bodies.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd like to see RMC Tokina tested among.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is information not to be disclosed.

I am glad I am already the owner of the Canon and Minolta zooms tested here. Note that I had to buy two samples of the Canon to obtain a good copy. But I am quite satisfied with the second I've got. First one paid 25 € and the second an outrageous 40 €... I had to pay 60 € for the Minolta and stole the copy from the owner's hands.

I am also the owner of the FD 80 200 L... which I paid ten times the price of my first Canon 70 150.... that does not see much use. Both Minolta and Canon copies tested here outresolve the A7II sensor which is not surprising considering the very nice crops you have shown on A7RII sensor. Would be interesting to have them tested on A7RIV. I am sure they would do well.

I have a set of FD lenses, 28, 35 both F2,8 and 50 1,8. All together with the 70 150 F 4,5 : 160€. I do feel that if all my other gear was stolen I could still be perfectly happy with those.

This puts the cost of photography into perspective. An ugly photo needs the photographer to be blamed.

This hobby has been so cheap, for the ones who know.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are several lenses I paid less than 5ukp for that I will never part with. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


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'll try to do that tomorrow. The highest resolution body I own is a Sony A7R (36 Mpix) but I guess that wouldn't make a lot of difference


Volker
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3