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

Which one is the most expensive lens you have bought so far?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A propos of the 200/2 Nikkor, Modern Photography tested it in 1981 and the 180/2.8 in 1985. On the whole, if one needs f/2 at that focal length there's no substitute for the 200/2. Otherwise, for most of us the 180 is probably the better choice.


Some 200ish Nikkors:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

180/2.8 9/85 2.8 50 45 44 40
4 56 50 50 42
5.6 56 50 57 46
8 63 56 60 50
11 63 56 56 44
16 56 50 48 41
22 56 50 40 32
32 50 45 34 28

200/2 5/81 2 44 39 20 22
2.8 55 44 33 23
4 62 44 45 25
5.6 55 49 46 25
8 55 49 50 27
11 49 44 46 27
16 49 44 43 24
22 49 39 34 21

Note that MP revised their test procedures from time to time. I no longer have access to the back issues from which I copied the test results -- our little public library ran out of space and threw them away -- so I can't check whether there was a change between '81 and '85. If there was, the more recent tests are more stringent.

Sorry, I can't get the columns to line up properly.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
A propos of the 200/2 Nikkor, Modern Photography tested it in 1981 and the 180/2.8 in 1985. On the whole, if one needs f/2 at that focal length there's no substitute for the 200/2. Otherwise, for most of us the 180 is probably the better choice.


Some 200ish Nikkors:

f/ Resolution Contrast
Ctr Edge Ctr Edge

180/2.8 9/85 2.8 50 45 44 40
4 56 50 50 42
5.6 56 50 57 46
8 63 56 60 50
11 63 56 56 44
16 56 50 48 41
22 56 50 40 32
32 50 45 34 28

200/2 5/81 2 44 39 20 22
2.8 55 44 33 23
4 62 44 45 25
5.6 55 49 46 25
8 55 49 50 27
11 49 44 46 27
16 49 44 43 24
22 49 39 34 21

Note that MP revised their test procedures from time to time. I no longer have access to the back issues from which I copied the test results -- our little public library ran out of space and threw them away -- so I can't check whether there was a change between '81 and '85. If there was, the more recent tests are more stringent.

Sorry, I can't get the columns to line up properly.

nikkor 180 AIS ED Today:


TY for your numbers--good to know the lens peaks at f/8--11
none of my 135s can touch the thing.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
A propos of the 200/2 Nikkor, Modern Photography tested it in 1981 and the 180/2.8 in 1985. On the whole, if one needs f/2 at that focal length there's no substitute for the 200/2. Otherwise, for most of us the 180 is probably the better choice.

Note that MP revised their test procedures from time to time. I no longer have access to the back issues from which I copied the test results -- our little public library ran out of space and threw them away -- so I can't check whether there was a change between '81 and '85. If there was, the more recent tests are more stringent.


I never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity....this thread is about the most expensive lens,not the sharpest or most contrasty.

To get the Nikkor 200/2 and not shoot it wide open is silly....and 95% of the time that is the way it's shot...once in a great while stop it down to f2.8 and usually never shoot it over f5.6.

When I don't need or want to shoot the 200/2...then I have plenty of other 200mm lenses to choose from...also have the 180/2.8 Ed and the 200/4 as well as a few more MF 200mm lenses and three modern Canon L 200mm lenses,but none of them can do what the 200/2 can do wide open

BTW...Those figures don't mean jack,it's well known the early AI versions weren't as good as the AI-S,and the AI-S was surpassed by AI-S N final version.Also the final version is sharpest about f2.8 ,with contrast increasing to about f5.6,after that the image quality declines.My copy was built in 2005 and was in the batch of the last 50 made.

Last edited by Boomer Depp on Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:38 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
Boomer Depp wrote:
Nikkor 200mm f2 IF-ED N AI-S ....bought it for obvious reasons and it cost more then a few clams....and absolutely no regrets.


Uh, yeah. I've priced them, and I'm sorry to say, this lens is a bit over my budget! What they normally sell for would buy a Zeiss 25/2 Distagon T* and a Zeiss Makro-planar 100/2 T*, and leave some change in my pocket. Not likely I'll have any of the three anytime soon.

Do enjoy it!!


Thank you!...and on special occasions I do indeed enjoy it.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Contax G 21mm F2.8.

Just acquired this lens for my Nex 5n, after recent postings of how well it performs.
Paid $765 delivered, with an $80 Heliopan filter, viewfinder, box, caps, etc..

My most expensive planned purchase is a Contax 100-300.
Just have not located the right one yet.
I would like to pick one up for $800, but will have to be patient.....

I am also looking at Leica R glass, and UhOh7's photos with the Leica 28mm look great... maybe someday....


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon 2.8/6mm for sure


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boomer Depp wrote:

Note that MP revised their test procedures from time to time. I no longer have access to the back issues from which I copied the test results -- our little public library ran out of space and threw them away -- so I can't check whether there was a change between '81 and '85. If there was, the more recent tests are more stringent.


I never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity....this thread is about the most expensive lens,not the sharpest or most contrasty.

To get the Nikkor 200/2 and not shoot it wide open is silly....and 95% of the time that is the way it's shot...once in a great while stop it down to f2.8 and usually never shoot it over f5.6.

When I don't need or want to shoot the 200/2...then I have plenty of other 200mm lenses to choose from...also have the 180/2.8 Ed and the 200/4 as well as a few more MF 200mm lenses and three modern Canon L 200mm lenses,but none of them can do what the 200/2 can do wide open

BTW...Those figures don't mean jack,it's well known the early AI versions weren't as good as the AI-S,and the AI-S was surpassed by AI-S N final version.Also the final version is sharpest about f2.8 ,with contrast increasing to about f5.6,after that the image quality declines.My copy was built in 2005 and was in the batch of the last 50 made.

+100
these lens test charts makes me smile sometime.......I had also the AI-S N, amazing lens and razorsharp even wide open...I sold it only because it was a little bit too heavy for me and quite difficult to use without tripod......BTW, it was my more expensive lens (1400€) and I never regrets one second my purchase...


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
gobears wrote:
Contax G 21mm F2.8.

Just acquired this lens for my Nex 5n, after recent postings of how well it performs.
Paid $765 delivered, with an $80 Heliopan filter, viewfinder, box, caps, etc..

My most expensive planned purchase is a Contax 100-300.
Just have not located the right one yet.
I would like to pick one up for $800, but will have to be patient.....

I am also looking at Leica R glass, and UhOh7's photos with the Leica 28mm look great... maybe someday....


Love to see some samples from that 21mm, I have a feeling NEX + G glass = superlative results.

Couple of 28s you might want to consider that are really top performers but just a wee bit cheaper than a Summicron are the two Konica Hexanons, I have the earlier all-metal EE version which has 7 elements, it's just awesome on the NEX, they don't go for much, mine was about 50USD and was virtually mint, definitely find one for 100USD. Even better is the UC 2/28 which is a fair bit more expensive but still an absolute steal for the level of performance, I think they go for 300USD or a bit more. Attila posted samples from the UC 2/28 on NEX, check em out.

Another 28 I'd like to try is the Minolta Rokkor SI 2.5/28, supposed to be extremely sharp, saw a couple go for 100-150USD recently.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boomer, turn off the anger and defensiveness and enlighten me on the 200/2 Nikkors redesign history. I ask because http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/180200mmnikkor/200mma.htm and http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html mention no redesigns. Don't shout, give references.

Your anger makes no sense given that we agree the lens is the only MF Nikkor for applications where 200 mm and f/2 (or longer, slower with a TC) is needed.

pich900, I understand your skepticism about published lens tests. Ken Rockwell's are laughable. You didn't say it, but you and I probably agree that small differences in measured resolution and contrast are meaningless when one takes pictures.

The terrifying thing about MP's later tests is that they're reproducible. I don't mean the words, I mean the measured lp/mm and contrast. When I've matched my lenses with their tests for them I got the same results. Two 200/4 MicroNikkor AISs (the first was stolen, the second replaced it), 700/8 Questar, 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS and 105/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS.

I don't think that PP ever tested the 200/2 Nikkor. I may have missed their test, though, and thanks to my library's shortsightedness I can't check.

Many people complained bitterly about the SQF results PP reported when testing on film (sorry, I don't know what they report now, and their tests were pretty useless before they went to SQF). I don't understand why, SQF gets at what's important to me. How much can the negative be enlarged to give a print with acceptable quality. I do understand why no one likes the news that printing 8x10 from a 35 mm negative is hard and printing interestingly larger -- unless the viewer stands well back from the print, I still remember that 60' print from a 35 mm Kodachrome slide in Grand Central -- is impossible, but that's reality.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Even better is the UC 2/28 which is a fair bit more expensive but still an absolute steal for the level of performance, I think they go for 300USD or a bit more. Attila posted samples from the UC 2/28 on NEX, check em out.


The UC Hexanon is 1.8/28mm and they go for quite a bit more then 300$.. I paid 420 Euro for mine and still think this was a good deal. I would say it's on the same level like the Zeiss T* 2/28 (Hollywood), also wide open a absolute top performer.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
Boomer, turn off the anger and defensiveness


Who's angry or defensive?...I was laughing so hard I busted a gut...

Even Bjørn says in the link you provided the lens is sharpest at f2.8 with a decline in sharpness and an increase in contrast till f5.6.That doesn't jibe with the test you posted and those of us who have the lens and are familiar with that test,just laugh and laugh like I'm laughing at you.

Yes the Mir link and all the others available don't show a optical redesign...but it is well known the first version wasn't quite up to the standards of the later AI-S and AI-S N version.A simple internet search will find other photographers saying the same thing.

Anyone who gets a 200/2 and shoots it other then wide open doesn't understand how to use such a lens...

In Bjørn Rørslett's words,"Peak results are attained nearly wide open, at aperture settings close to f/2.8. By the way, I tend to use mine set at f/2 all the time. Wide open, images are very sharp but contrast is moderate. Contrast does increase up to f/5.6, but a concomitant loss of image sharpness negates the benefit of stopping the lens down. Beyond f/5.6 there is a rapid decline of image detail and the results at f/22 are definitively poor. That doesn't matter much because you have to be stupid to buy and use such a super-speed lens at small apertures anyway, when any ordinary lens would do the job much better. The 200 f/2 is designed for the ultimate performance under low light situations and here it reigns supreme."

The Nikkor 300mm f2.8 IF-ED N AI-S looks somewhat similar to the Nikkor 200mm f2 IF-ED N AI-S,and more then a few have misidentified the 200/2 for the 300/2.8....





Last edited by Boomer Depp on Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:11 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon FD 300/2.8L paid ~ 800-900 Euro with tax - don´t remember exactly. Got 175 Euro back from Ebay because lens has fungus and was in bad condition (screws abused, cheap filter inside) - not mentioned, "good condition".
I regret that buy, such lenses in better condition shortly later where cheaper on Ebay.

The Lens with most value is probably a Zeiss Jena Pinatar 125 mm satelite / arial lens. Seems to be a rare lens - most likely some are evaporated into the athmosphere Smile
It is a special lens like the Lamegon and those.

Last edited by ZoneV on Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikkor ED 50-300mm f4.5 AI-S final version cost a lot of clams...no regrets





PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeiss 21mm f2.8 cost a lot of clams for a lens that looks like an early 70's Vivitar...



Last edited by Boomer Depp on Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:48 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tough one on the Canon FD 300/2.8L ZoneV...seen a beautiful copy at Camera Techs in Ballard last year...I was awfully tempted.

Last edited by Boomer Depp on Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:00 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Takumar f2/58mm, the rare "Sonnar Tak" for just below 300 Euro incl. it's camera.
regret it? No way! I loved it so much that I had hunted and bought ( + resold ) some more copies of the same lens

below the various 2/58 Taks next comes a S-M-C Takumar f1.8/85mm. For about 190 Euro a rel. good bargain considering that it's a near mint copy I bought only abt. 6 months ago.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boomer Depp wrote:
(every lens) cost … clams


Is using clams as currency the reason why all your lenses qualify for “the most expensive”?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A sense of humor goes a long way and is worth more then all the lenses clams could buy...

Last edited by Boomer Depp on Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:56 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This thread is about THE most expensive lens you bought, not all of them! Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Even better is the UC 2/28 which is a fair bit more expensive but still an absolute steal for the level of performance, I think they go for 300USD or a bit more. Attila posted samples from the UC 2/28 on NEX, check em out.


The UC Hexanon is 1.8/28mm and they go for quite a bit more then 300$.. I paid 420 Euro for mine and still think this was a good deal. I would say it's on the same level like the Zeiss T* 2/28 (Hollywood), also wide open a absolute top performer.


Aah, my memory is awful, thanks for the correction!

BTW, I'm still jealous of your purchase, my lovely 3.5/28 EE just feels somehow inadequate since you got that UC 1.8/28....


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Tedat wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Even better is the UC 2/28 which is a fair bit more expensive but still an absolute steal for the level of performance, I think they go for 300USD or a bit more. Attila posted samples from the UC 2/28 on NEX, check em out.


The UC Hexanon is 1.8/28mm and they go for quite a bit more then 300$.. I paid 420 Euro for mine and still think this was a good deal. I would say it's on the same level like the Zeiss T* 2/28 (Hollywood), also wide open a absolute top performer.


Aah, my memory is awful, thanks for the correction!

BTW, I'm still jealous of your purchase, my lovely 3.5/28 EE just feels somehow inadequate since you got that UC 1.8/28....


I thought you did most of your shooting on a tripod... Wink


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A tripod for 28mm...hmmm

Last edited by Boomer Depp on Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:13 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Tedat wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Even better is the UC 2/28 which is a fair bit more expensive but still an absolute steal for the level of performance, I think they go for 300USD or a bit more. Attila posted samples from the UC 2/28 on NEX, check em out.


The UC Hexanon is 1.8/28mm and they go for quite a bit more then 300$.. I paid 420 Euro for mine and still think this was a good deal. I would say it's on the same level like the Zeiss T* 2/28 (Hollywood), also wide open a absolute top performer.


Aah, my memory is awful, thanks for the correction!

BTW, I'm still jealous of your purchase, my lovely 3.5/28 EE just feels somehow inadequate since you got that UC 1.8/28....


I thought you did most of your shooting on a tripod... Wink


Oh I do, I just have lens envy, it's similar to lens addiction...


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My most expensive manual focus (and indeed any) lens—by far—is the Sony STF 135mm f/2.8 t/4.5. I still paid only about half the current list price in like-new condition, and have no regrets other than lack of time to use it more. It's the bokeh-fancier's dream lens to be sure.

Last edited by Arkku on Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some might mis-identify the 200/2 for the 300/2.8...but there are noticeable differences....

Nikkor 200mm f2 IF-ED N AI-S



Nikkor 300mm f2.8 IF-ED N AI-S



Last edited by Boomer Depp on Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5