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

Minolta MD 200mm f2.8 wide open Samsung NX-11
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:04 pm    Post subject: Minolta MD 200mm f2.8 wide open Samsung NX-11 Reply with quote
Shockingly good, small , sharp , light weight one of my best experience.



#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shockingly good! Looks even better than my beloved Konica 3.5/200. I'll keep my eye for one of these.

The lion shot is great, but my favourite is the boy on the bench, the quality of light is wonderful, great work. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you! Yes shockingly good.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not surprised!! I knew this lens was excellent... never saw a sample... but I knew was excellent!!! not surprised at all!

Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolta said this lens has the highest resolving power among its history, made at the late minolta era.

Its optical design and some info > http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/174-minolta-200mm-f28

More surprisingly its design is very similar to that of Prakticar 200mm F2.8, which is also a good lens
and less CA than MD 200mm F2.8's. MD 200mm first appeared 1979, Prakticar 200mm was in mid 1980s,
the both lenses were not made too many unfortunately. The both are sharp and also have nice boké.

Five bottoms by MD 200mm f2.8: film = G100 (Kodak Gold 100, no so good film), camera = XG-9, scanner = Epson V700


Just testing with NEX-5 + Lens Turbo: @f2.8
HD TV screen about 3.5m away hand held tonight (animation program for kids)
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20138/big_651_NEX5_LT_MD200_DSC4766_1.jpg]
[/url]

Upper right corner of the above image 100% crop (no degradation by Lens Turbo in this case, long lens is alright with LT)
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20138/big_651_NEX5_LT_MD200_DSC4766_100_1.jpg]
[/url]

Last edited by koji on Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:41 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow picture indeed, Koji so clear so fresh! Thank you for info !


PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a few more samples:

Hibiscus @f4 with NEX-5 + Lens Turbo, less than 2m to the subject


Towers @f5.6 with NEX-5 + Lens Turbo


Some more in here > http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/rokkor_md_200mm_f28


PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What's the point in a lens turbo with a 200mm lens?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
koji wrote:
Minolta said this lens has the highest resolving power among its history, made at the late minolta era.

Its optical design and some info > http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/174-minolta-200mm-f28

More surprisingly its design is very similar to that of Prakticar 200mm F2.8, which is also a good lens
and less CA than MD 200mm F2.8's. MD 200mm first appeared 1979, Prakticar 200mm was in mid 1980s,
the both lenses were not made too many unfortunately. The both are sharp and also have nice boké.

I think this information is not quite correct. The two lenses are completely different:

1) The CZJ weighs 1206g while the Minolta just 700g. A difference of almost 1/2kg!
2) The CZJ has 6 optical elements, while the Minolta has only 5.
3) The CZJ is very sharp wide open, while the Minolta is slightly soft.
4) The CZJ focuses down to 2.20m, while the Minolta goes down to 1.70 m.

I have the CZJ 200mm F2.8 and know it is an excellent lens. I don't have the Minolta 200mm F2.8, but I think it is a very good lens. Although the CZJ lens appears to be optically better, it is heavier and more cumbersome than the Minolta.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:


1) The CZJ weighs 1206g while the Minolta just 700g. A difference of almost 1/2kg!
2) The CZJ has 6 optical elements, while the Minolta has only 5.
3) The CZJ is very sharp wide open, while the Minolta is slightly soft.
4) The CZJ focuses down to 2.20m, while the Minolta goes down to 1.70 m.

I have the CZJ 200mm F2.8 and know it is an excellent lens. I don't have the Minolta 200mm F2.8, but I think it is a very good lens. Although the CZJ lens appears to be optically better, it is heavier and more cumbersome than the Minolta.

I always thought that the Prakticar 2.8/200mm is just an execptional rare Version of the SOnnar 2.8/200. But I don't know if there are differences between the Sonnar 2.8/200mm in M42 and the rare Prakticar 2.8/200mm in PB.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can see the prices of this lens rocketing ! Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-200mm-f-2-8-my-first-shots-t66646.html


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
contax 180mm is my choice , not rare and stunning


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Miles Teg wrote:
Gerald wrote:


1) The CZJ weighs 1206g while the Minolta just 700g. A difference of almost 1/2kg!
2) The CZJ has 6 optical elements, while the Minolta has only 5.
3) The CZJ is very sharp wide open, while the Minolta is slightly soft.
4) The CZJ focuses down to 2.20m, while the Minolta goes down to 1.70 m.

I have the CZJ 200mm F2.8 and know it is an excellent lens. I don't have the Minolta 200mm F2.8, but I think it is a very good lens. Although the CZJ lens appears to be optically better, it is heavier and more cumbersome than the Minolta.

I always thought that the Prakticar 2.8/200mm is just an execptional rare Version of the SOnnar 2.8/200. But I don't know if there are differences between the Sonnar 2.8/200mm in M42 and the rare Prakticar 2.8/200mm in PB.

You're right, so I want to make a correction here. I found an old catalog with the Prakticar lenses for the Praktica B200. Unfortunately the catalog is in Spanish, but I believe it is possible to read the table with the specifications.

The Prakticar 200mm F2.8 seems to have the same optics of the M42-mount CZJ Sonnar 200 F2.8, but the weight was reduced from 1200g to 1000g, and the minimum focusing distance from 2.2 m to 2.0 m. In any case, the Prakticar 200mm F2.8 is very different from the Minolta 200mm F2.8.






PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
contax 180mm is my choice , not rare and stunning

I think the Zeiss Sonnar 180mm F2.8 for Contax is indeed an extraordinary lens. It is quite light, 815g, and focuses down to 1.4m thanks to the use of a floating element.

That said, it seems that the Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F2.8 for Contax is even better. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges, but the Sonnar 135mm F2.8 wide open outperforms the Sonnar 180mm F2.8 stopped down to F5.6, what is quite a feat. At least that's what the curves published by Zeiss Oberkochen say.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, that catalogue is strange, it mixes both Pentacon and Zeiss lenses and includes the Zeiss 2.8/28 which never made it into production and the Pentacon 2.8/200 which didn't make it into production either. Also, it shows the 2.4/50 but doesn't list it in the table and has two 1.8/50s listed, one can only guess one is the very rare Pancolar 1.8/50 and the other is the Pentacon. It doesn't include the 1.4/50 Zeiss which is quite common and also misses out the rare 2.8/50 and 2.8/50 Macro, the common Zeiss 3.5/135 is missing too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1