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

CZ Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4 vs Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2024 12:41 pm    Post subject: CZ Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4 vs Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4 Reply with quote
Received my Vario-Sonnar yesterday so decided to do a near infinity comparison with the Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4

@80mm
comparison80 by devoscasper, on Flickr

No significant differences centrally. When you look at the corners (sorry btw for the car missing on the Minolta's images Smile), and especially at the grid on the edge of the sidewalk, you'll see that the Minolta is a tad sharper.

@115mm
comparison115 by devoscasper, on Flickr

This must bee the weakest setting of the Vario-Sonnar: the far edges just won't get really sharp, unlike the Minolta's.

@150mm
comparison150 by devoscasper, on Flickr

And this is probably the weakest setting of the Minolta. We've seen it before in the comparison against the Mamiya 75-150/4.5: just not really sharp in the corners on a high res sensor. The Zeiss does better here.

Zeiss@200mm
zeiss200mm by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Zeiss does a good job @ 200mm as well.

Conclusion: in general, the Zeiss does a pretty good job at most settings. One thing that struck me is that performance doesn't change much through the aperture range. This is a good thing; stopping down will only marginally improve the image. Just like the Minolta, a solid, but not perfect performance. The Zeiss suffers more from CA's than the Minolta, but it's not terrible, and easily corrected.

Besides its generally good performance, there are more things to like about the Vario-Sonnar:
- its modest weight of 680 grams.
- its short MFD of 1 meter
- its 9 bladed aperture
- its excellent mechanical quality

Hope to post some more images of the Zeiss soon.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:08 pm    Post subject: Re: CZ Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4 vs Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4 Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Received my Vario-Sonnar yesterday so decided to do a near infinity comparison
...
Conclusion: in general, the Zeiss does a pretty good job at most settings. One thing that struck me is that performance doesn't change much through the aperture range. This is a good thing; stopping down will only marginally improve the image. Just like the Minolta, a solid, but not perfect performance. The Zeiss suffers more from CA's than the Minolta, but it's not terrible, and easily corrected.

Besides its generally good performance, there are more things to like about the Vario-Sonnar:
- its modest weight of 680 grams.
- its short MFD of 1 meter
- its 9 bladed aperture
- its excellent mechanical quality

Hope to post some more images of the Zeiss soon.


Thanks for your work - it's always interesting to see others doing the "same" tests as me, and reading their conclusions. When it comes to the CY Vario Sonnar, I pretty much support your conclusions. Out of all my many MF telezooms in the 80-200/70-210mm range, it's my favourite, especially because of its handling qualities and its really good corner performance at the long end. As you said, lateral CAs are pretty much the same as with any other good tele zoom from the early 1980s (only the nFD 80-200mm and the Sigma 3.5-4.5/50-200mm being better in this regard, but both have their inherent problems with the zoom mechanics [Canon] or lens fogging [Sigma]). That said, for "real work" I'm using a modern f2.8 tele zoom of course, because of the muchbetter color correction.

Similarly the Zeiss CY 28-85mm is a beautiful piece of mechanical and optical art, but even a fifteen years old Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm is much, much better.

I recently have tested a bunch of Zeiss CY lenses including the legendary CY Distagoon 2/28mm, the said 28-85mm, the Planar 1.4/85mm and the Tele Tessar 3.5/200mm. While all these lenses mechanically are really well made and very user-friendly, their optical performance is (apart from the 2/28mm) not better or even clearly worse (200mm) compared to my Minolta AF lenses from the same time frame (1985-1990). I finally did buy the 28-85mm "just for fun", but our local dealer still couldn't sell the CY/80-200 and the CY 3.5/200, even though prices are rather moderate (<CHF100) and the lenses themselves look like new.

S


PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 9:19 am    Post subject: Re: CZ Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4 vs Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Received my Vario-Sonnar yesterday so decided to do a near infinity comparison
...
Conclusion: in general, the Zeiss does a pretty good job at most settings. One thing that struck me is that performance doesn't change much through the aperture range. This is a good thing; stopping down will only marginally improve the image. Just like the Minolta, a solid, but not perfect performance. The Zeiss suffers more from CA's than the Minolta, but it's not terrible, and easily corrected.

Besides its generally good performance, there are more things to like about the Vario-Sonnar:
- its modest weight of 680 grams.
- its short MFD of 1 meter
- its 9 bladed aperture
- its excellent mechanical quality

Hope to post some more images of the Zeiss soon.


Thanks for your work - it's always interesting to see others doing the "same" tests as me, and reading their conclusions. When it comes to the CY Vario Sonnar, I pretty much support your conclusions. Out of all my many MF telezooms in the 80-200/70-210mm range, it's my favourite, especially because of its handling qualities and its really good corner performance at the long end. As you said, lateral CAs are pretty much the same as with any other good tele zoom from the early 1980s (only the nFD 80-200mm and the Sigma 3.5-4.5/50-200mm being better in this regard, but both have their inherent problems with the zoom mechanics [Canon] or lens fogging [Sigma]). That said, for "real work" I'm using a modern f2.8 tele zoom of course, because of the muchbetter color correction.

Similarly the Zeiss CY 28-85mm is a beautiful piece of mechanical and optical art, but even a fifteen years old Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm is much, much better.

I recently have tested a bunch of Zeiss CY lenses including the legendary CY Distagoon 2/28mm, the said 28-85mm, the Planar 1.4/85mm and the Tele Tessar 3.5/200mm. While all these lenses mechanically are really well made and very user-friendly, their optical performance is (apart from the 2/28mm) not better or even clearly worse (200mm) compared to my Minolta AF lenses from the same time frame (1985-1990). I finally did buy the 28-85mm "just for fun", but our local dealer still couldn't sell the CY/80-200 and the CY 3.5/200, even though prices are rather moderate (<CHF100) and the lenses themselves look like new.

S


Yeah, prices are quite low at the moment. I paid 115 € for the Vario Sonnar, which is optically and mechanically perfect, and has only a tiny stain on the rubber focusing grip. And that includes tax and shipping from Japan. Good news for hobbyists like me Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1