| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: 180mm vs 200mm |
 |
|
woodrim wrote:
I have been considering a Zeiss Sonnar 200mm or 180mm, but only because I'm weak. I certainly don't need it. I have noticed posts about the lenses, but don't recall comparisons between them. Which has the better performance? Sharpness? Focal length is too close to make a big difference. Size may be an issue though. The 180mm looks to be quite huge.
Also, on the subject of the oddball 180mm length, Soligor made one too (maybe Komine). Anyone know how it compares with the Vivitar Komine made 200mm f/3.5? I have that 200mm, so can better understand a comparison.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
I have experience with Pentacon 200/4, Jupiter 200/4, Sonnar 180/2.8, Sonnar MC 180/2.8 and Sonnar MC 200/2.8.
Each of them is different. None of them is as sharp as Sonnar 135/3.5.
Jupiter 200/4 is sharp, but it has quite low contrast. I don't know why, optical formula is simple, similar to Jupiter/Sonnar 135mm. Pentacon is a bit more contrasty, maybe slightly less sharp wide-open and similar stopped-down (I have never made direct comparision). Pentacons are possibly more variable in quality.
Sonnar 180/2.8 is the sharpes of the Sonnars. MC 180/2.8 is variable in quality (sharpness), but more contrasty. MC 200/2.8 has smaller diameter, so it's easier to use. It is also less variable in quality, but I'd say it has higher CA than the 180/2.8.
Simply, any of them isn't "perfect" in all aspects. I believe APO Lanthar 180/4 is, but is it worth 5-10-times higher price?
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: 180mm vs 200mm |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
I have been considering a Zeiss Sonnar 200mm or 180mm, but only because I'm weak. I certainly don't need it. I have noticed posts about the lenses, but don't recall comparisons between them. Which has the better performance? Sharpness? Focal length is too close to make a big difference. Size may be an issue though. The 180mm looks to be quite huge.
Also, on the subject of the oddball 180mm length, Soligor made one too (maybe Komine). Anyone know how it compares with the Vivitar Komine made 200mm f/3.5? I have that 200mm, so can better understand a comparison. |
I have all include Vivitar... Vivitar lack of details compare with Sonnars.
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/japenese/vivitar/vivitar_200mm_f3_5_tx/
Scroll down to see 180mm and 200mm Sonnars.
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/
Contax Sonnar
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/carl_zeiss/carl_zeiss_sonnar_180mm_f2_8_MM_Japanese/
_________________
-------------------------------
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 |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 8551
Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Nikon makes a fairly compact 180/2.8 which is a very sharp lens with lovely OOF rendition and classic nikon "colours".
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 |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Again, I really don't need one, but can probably pick up 200mm for <$275. I wonder how much better than my Vivitar 200mm S1 f/3
33%crop
and my other images from this lens here:
http://www.pbase.com/mdlempert/vivitar200mms1
Plenty of CA, but fairly easily corrected. Always looking to improve.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| no-X wrote: |
I have experience with Pentacon 200/4, Jupiter 200/4, Sonnar 180/2.8, Sonnar MC 180/2.8 and Sonnar MC 200/2.8.
Each of them is different. None of them is as sharp as Sonnar 135/3.5.
|
I disagree. I can not say if any of the Sonnars is sharper or less sharp that the others as not one of them is anywhere near their limit with the current camera sensors. One needs to test them with a heavy teleconverter setup - even with one TC there is no real difference.
The reason why 135 often provides the sharpers images is the ease of use - the DOF tends to be larger and the lens is by far the lightest, allowing quick operation withouth penelties (I mean moving the lens quicly to face the subject and immeiately take the shot).
I just love the 135 because of it's reliability in getting perfectly in-focus shots one after the other. With the longer ones the DOF is just so shallow, especially when the subject is close, that often the subject is a little bit OOF.
| Quote: |
Sonnar 180/2.8 is the sharpes of the Sonnars. MC 180/2.8 is variable in quality (sharpness), but more contrasty. MC 200/2.8 has smaller diameter, so it's easier to use. It is also less variable in quality, but I'd say it has higher CA than the 180/2.8.
|
In my experience - I've got 180, 200 and two 300's (the third is basicly spare parts nowdays). I can't say that there is any difference in sharpness between them. I'd need to test it with TCs. Maybe someday I will. I think the axial CA in these lenses goes up with the focal lenght - 300 does have the most (both of them), 135 clearly the least.
Of the longer Sonnars the 200 is clearly the easiest to carry and use - it's light enough and also fits more easily into camera bags. The built in hood is a big plus (though not as neat as the 135's one, but instead full metal solid). I rather carry the later and lighter version of the 300/4 than the 180/2.8, but I guess that's mostly because of the non-variable maximum aperture of the longer lens (at close focus distances).
| Quote: |
Simply, any of them isn't "perfect" in all aspects. I believe APO Lanthar 180/4 is, but is it worth 5-10-times higher price? |
Axial CA is the biggest issue with the old CZJ Sonnars (well, 135 doesn't really have much), other than that they are really tough to beat. Still, I am sure that the APO design of the Lanthar would be superior, being wiithout the CA-weakness. I do want to own one one of these days, but being broke... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
My other question was about the Soligor 180mm. I have seen where it was spoken well of, but I'd like to get a baseline on that. I don't suppose it compares well to the Zeiss. Since I do have the Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 (in addition to the Series 1), I was wondering if it's only comparable to that lens. If so, probably wouldn't be worth getting.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:24 am Post subject: Re: 180mm vs 200mm |
|
|
Blue wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
I have been considering a Zeiss Sonnar 200mm or 180mm, but only because I'm weak. I certainly don't need it. I have noticed posts about the lenses, but don't recall comparisons between them. Which has the better performance? Sharpness? Focal length is too close to make a big difference. Size may be an issue though. The 180mm looks to be quite huge.
Also, on the subject of the oddball 180mm length, Soligor made one too (maybe Komine). Anyone know how it compares with the Vivitar Komine made 200mm f/3.5? I have that 200mm, so can better understand a comparison. |
Well, if you are weak, I see no way around it but getting one of each and trying them out. 
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blue wrote:
Look what this guy did with the Pentax K 200mm f2.5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/3845144025_f7cf9f7668_o.jpg
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
What did he do? It looks like a duck.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blue wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| What did he do? It looks like a duck. |
Actually, its a teal. However, the above link is the downsized image. Go here and click on the image and then click on it to enlarge it for a larger version.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/977894-post20.html
Edit: This is a duck. 
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/japenese/vivitar/vivitar_200mm_f3_5_tx/vivitar_auto_200mm_f3_5_tx-105.jpg.html
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dave_t
Joined: 16 Sep 2008
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dave_t wrote:
Still don't quite know what we're looking at in the duck picture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blue wrote:
| dave_t wrote: |
| Still don't quite know what we're looking at in the duck picture? |
Go up and follow the above instructions to get to the largest image of the teal, then look at the sharpness, color rendering and finally, look at the details in the feathers. I guess it would help if people have seen a teal in person before to appreciate the color reproduction.
Edit: Or download it and pixel peep.
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying he did something to the lens, but you are providing an example of the lens output. Got it. Still looks like a duck though.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Yes, aquatic bird looks very sharp.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blue wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying he did something to the lens, but you are providing an example of the lens output. Got it. Still looks like a duck though. |
Its a duck but which one. A female mallard or winter plumage female blue-winged teal or other Anas sp.
There are several 180mm and 200mm lenses in the f2.5 or f2.8 range that are good glass. I use a Tamron 180mm f2.5 model 63B for that focal length but there aren't many of them available.
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
Again, I really don't need one, but can probably pick up 200mm for <$275. I wonder how much better than my Vivitar 200mm S1 f/3
33%crop
and my other images from this lens here:
http://www.pbase.com/mdlempert/vivitar200mms1
Plenty of CA, but fairly easily corrected. Always looking to improve. |
I had two or three copies from this lens I sold them I always found even if this is an excellent one CZ glasses produce better pictures to my eyes.
_________________
-------------------------------
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 |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Thank you, Attila, that was what I've been looking for; someone that can compare this Series 1 with the Zeiss. I like the Series 1 200mm very much and have been using it a lot, but am always looking for improvements when reasonable. I had also asked about the Soligor 180mm as I have seen good reports, but I need to tie those assessments with something else known. That's why I asked for it to be compared to regular Vivitar 200mm (not Series 1). I wouldn't want to buy a Soligor if it was no better than my plain Vivitar.
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
