View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: SMC Takumar 300/4 - Nikkor ED IF 300/4.5 - Sonnar 300/4 |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Seeking for the best 300mm lens, I accumulated some fine glass: S-M-C Takumar 4/300mm, Nikkor ED IF 4.5/300mm, and CZJ Sonnar MC 4/300mm, all very fine lenses. My findings with the full-frame 5DmkII are below.
Size: Takumar is the shortest of the bunch, by about 2cm shorter than Nikkor. And that's despite Nikkor has ED and was touted as being the most compact 300mm lens of the time. Sonnar is by far the biggest and the bulkiest.
Weight: Takumar and Nikkor are about the same weight; Sonnar is obviously heavier.
Handling: Nikkor has by far the smoothest focusing. Nothing extends, focusing is light and conveniently located. Takumar is the second, and Sonnar is extremely bulky, making it difficult to handle.
Image quality: That's the most interesting part. I shot the same scene with all lenses wide open and at f/5.6, making sure to focus with LiveView and picking the best focused shot out of several. Focusing was on a satellite dish.
Sharpness: Wide open, I would say it's Sonnar and Nikkor (both about equally sharp), followed distantly by Takumar. Overall, I found the Tak to be not quite sharp enough wide open with less micro-contrast than the other two lenses. Stopped down to f/5.6, all lenses give comparable performance; I would say, Nikkor and Sonnar closely, then Takumar.
CA: Chromatic aberration plagues old teles. Takumar shows especially strong CA wide open, even slightly worse stopped down; both Nikkor and Sonnar handle CA beutifully. Takumar has the most pronounced lateral CA. Note that Sonnar is a 50 year old design without any ED glass in it! Both Takumar and Nikkor are significantly newer.
Background blur: Tested on a different set of pictures, bokeh seems to be worst with the Nikkor. OOF highlights are onion-structured and can be slightly disturbing. Nothing too bad though. The Takumar is much smoother, but the Sonnar is absolutely the best in this test.
Vignetting: Wide open, both Takumar and Nikkor exhibit light fall-off towards the corners. Stopped down, the issue almost disappears. Generally, I don't mind vignetting in tele lenses as it adds to the atmosphere. Having said that, the Sonnar has none of it! No wonder, it's a medium format lens after all.
The winner? IQ wise, I'd pick the Sonnar any day for its uniform picture quality, no light fall-off, and nice rendering with smooth bokeh. However, it's a heavy and bulky beast which is hard to haul around even for a short while. Nikkor finishes a close second; I love its handling, its compact size and relatively light weight. Takumar disappoints by not having the punch wide open the other two lenses have, and exhibiting pronounced CA all over the frame. Despite S-M-C coatings, micro-contrast wide open is not that exciting as well.
Conclusion: Out of the three lenses, the next one I'll take on a photo hunt will be Nikkor ED IF 300/4.5.
Test shots. This was the scene I shot the tests:
100% crops will follow. Unsharpened, unprocessed. A little USM will certainly give more details; even wide-open shots made with the Takumar are very usable when looked at with less magnification! _________________ List of lenses
Last edited by aoleg on Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:57 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject: Takumar test shots |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Here are 100% crops of the test shots of S-M-C Takumar 300/4. They were not sharpened or processed.
Center, wide open (f/4):
Center, f/5.6:
CA wide open (note: this is not a sharpness test; a different subject was focused on):
CA at f/5.6:
_________________ List of lenses
Last edited by aoleg on Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: Nikkor test shots |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Here are the test shots of Nikkor ED IF 300/4.5.
Center, wide open (f/4.5):
Center, f/5.6:
CA wide open (note: this is not a sharpness test; a different subject was focused on):
CA at f/5.6:
_________________ List of lenses
Last edited by aoleg on Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: Sonnar 300/4 |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Finally, the test shots of CZJ MC Sonnar 300/4.
Center, wide open (f/4):
Center, f/5.6:
CA wide open (note: this is not a sharpness test; a different subject was focused on):
CA at f/5.6:
_________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
trifox
Joined: 14 May 2008 Posts: 3614 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-05-29
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trifox wrote:
I think that the Nikkor is better than the Sonnar in blacks - shadows..
tf _________________ Flickr.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Thanks for these samples - very interesting. I love the nikkor 300/4,5 it's simply one of the best at that range.
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
patrickh wrote: |
Thanks for these samples - very interesting. I love the nikkor 300/4,5 it's simply one of the best at that range.
patrickh |
I had all above lenses, I think all are good one and I kept Sonnar and sold Nikon and Takumar. I wish to buy CZ Tessar 300mm f4. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
The Takumar really trails the other two, purple and green everywhere.
The Nikkor is nice (better than my 300/4.5, which is pre-ED) although CA gets worse as its stopped down, I see. _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Attila wrote: |
I had all above lenses, I think all are good one and I kept Sonnar and sold Nikon and Takumar. I wish to buy CZ Tessar 300mm f4. |
Seeing how Tele-Tessar fares would indeed be interesting. It's out of my price range though. Also to be considered the fact that the Nikkor focuses down to 2.5m, CZJ Sonnar to 4m, and Takumar to 5.5m. Tele-Tessar is 3.5m. Therefore, I think the Nikkor is the better lens in practical terms, and a better value. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
aoleg wrote: |
Attila wrote: |
I had all above lenses, I think all are good one and I kept Sonnar and sold Nikon and Takumar. I wish to buy CZ Tessar 300mm f4. |
Seeing how Tele-Tessar fares would indeed be interesting. It's out of my price range though. Also to be considered the fact that the Nikkor focuses down to 2.5m, CZJ Sonnar to 4m, and Takumar to 5.5m. Tele-Tessar is 3.5m. Therefore, I think the Nikkor is the better lens in practical terms, and a better value. |
Yes, exactly from all above three Nikkor is best selection. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote: |
The Takumar really trails the other two, purple and green everywhere.
The Nikkor is nice (better than my 300/4.5, which is pre-ED) although CA gets worse as its stopped down, I see. |
The small amount of CA in the ED Nikkor can be corrected fairly easily and without noticeable effect on image quality in the RAW converter. Correcting pronounced CA such as those in the Takumar is much less feasible, and produces a generally even softer image. With the Tak, it's difficult to get a perfect image at wider apertures: I stop down to get a sharper picture, CA goes worse, I get a softer image after correcting them. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gurdie
Joined: 29 Jul 2008 Posts: 997 Location: Finland
Expire: 2013-02-20
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gurdie wrote:
Thank You for this most interesting test. I´m looking for a 300 mm lens for my Nikon, and by your test, it seems, that a Nikkor ED glass is the best option. I just wonder, how a Tair-3, or -33 would have done with these three? _________________ Markku
Give me two hours a day of activity, and I'll take the other twenty-two in dreams.
― Salvador Dali
----------------------------------------- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Gurdie wrote: |
Thank You for this most interesting test. I´m looking for a 300 mm lens for my Nikon, and by your test, it seems, that a Nikkor ED glass is the best option. I just wonder, how a Tair-3, or -33 would have done with these three? |
I don't have a Tair, but I don't think it can be better than the Nikkor. Considering the price factor, the small premium paid for a Nikkor is well worth it. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Interesting comparison between the Nikkor and the Sonnar.
The Nikkor has worst CA stopped down but has nearly none wide open, while the Sonnar has a bit of CA in every situation.
Since super long tele lenses are often used wide open, I would then vote for the Nikkor.
The Takumar unfortunately does not seem up to the same quality level. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
aoleg wrote: |
ChrisLilley wrote: |
The Takumar really trails the other two, purple and green everywhere.
The Nikkor is nice (better than my 300/4.5, which is pre-ED) although CA gets worse as its stopped down, I see. |
The small amount of CA in the ED Nikkor can be corrected fairly easily and without noticeable effect on image quality in the RAW converter. |
Lateral CA can be fairly easily corrected, the software scales the red and blue channels relative to the green one (either linearly or, for better correction, non-linearly).
Axial CA is less easy, and I believe the CA here is axial.
Edit: but I was wrong, as the next post shows its lateral CA _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list)
Last edited by ChrisLilley on Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Nikkor @f/5.6 corrected for CA:
_________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wildlightphoto
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 Posts: 66 Location: Sacramento USA
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wildlightphoto wrote:
Gurdie wrote: |
Thank You for this most interesting test. I´m looking for a 300 mm lens for my Nikon, and by your test, it seems, that a Nikkor ED glass is the best option. I just wonder, how a Tair-3, or -33 would have done with these three? |
IMHO there are two 300mm-ish f/4-ish lenses that will beat the three in this test;
300mm f/4.5 Nikkor*ED (non-IF)
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R (Leica)
The non-IF Nikkor shows no CA, however it doesn't focus as close, the focus isn't as smooth and the bokeh can be harsh.
The Leica lens' drawbacks are its size & weight, and its cost. Its focus is smooth and quick, has an excellent close-focus limit, the bokeh is usually quite good, and for all practical purposes its optimum aperture is f/4. _________________ Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
wildlightphoto wrote: |
IMHO there are two 300mm-ish f/4-ish lenses that will beat the three in this test;
300mm f/4.5 Nikkor*ED (non-IF)
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R (Leica)
|
Make it three...
http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/300f28.htm
- _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
Orio wrote: |
wildlightphoto wrote: |
IMHO there are two 300mm-ish f/4-ish lenses that will beat the three in this test;
300mm f/4.5 Nikkor*ED (non-IF)
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R (Leica)
|
Make it three...
http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/300f28.htm
- |
That f/2.8 lens does not really count as a 300mm f/4-ish lens, though. Although if it does, so does this
Click here to see on Ebay _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
wildlightphoto wrote: |
IMHO there are two 300mm-ish f/4-ish lenses that will beat the three in this test;
300mm f/4.5 Nikkor*ED (non-IF)
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R (Leica)
|
The non-IF Nikkor*ED is elusive. I tried to spot one for a few month with no success.
The APO Leica is most certainly better than any of the three tested here, but being 20 times more expensive than all three combined it better be. It's possible to lease one for just $243/mo over 3 years though _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote: |
Orio wrote: |
wildlightphoto wrote: |
IMHO there are two 300mm-ish f/4-ish lenses that will beat the three in this test;
300mm f/4.5 Nikkor*ED (non-IF)
280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R (Leica)
|
Make it three...
http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/300f28.htm
- |
That f/2.8 lens does not really count as a 300mm f/4-ish lens, though. Although if it does, so does this
Click here to see on Ebay |
Oh well, I'll never be able to afford any of them, so... _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
edumad
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 Posts: 348 Location: Esposende, Portugal
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
edumad wrote:
I bet my Helios 300mm F4.5 could beat them... Not.
So far doesn't seem too bad, maybe on par with Tair, but CA is quite evident.
I still have to try it in a sunny day. Only have slow shutter speed photos.
If I had money, the M* 300 F4, A* 300mm F4 and A* 300 F2.8 seem rather interesting. _________________ TWAPSI - The World As Photography Sees It |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xjjohnno
Joined: 07 Apr 2009 Posts: 1270 Location: Melbourne Australia
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
xjjohnno wrote:
Vey useful comarison there. I've been thinking of adding some 300mm+ lenses to my collection and at least have an idea on what not to buy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
PS The nikkor 300/4,5 ED (non IR) was a very short production run and so is rare and expensive.
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterm1
Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 224
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterm1 wrote:
I have both the Tak and the Nikkor. I prefer the latter. Although the Tak is certainly sharp enough I found it to have quite unusual and rather harsh bokeh. But here are two photos - first the NIkkor and then the Tak. I would be interested in seeing what you think. Maybe the bokeh in mine had something to do with the shooting conditions or the version (mine is the early manual aperture version.)
_________________ PeterM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|