Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?

  
 
mattpayne11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


Hi all,

I switched to the Sony A7r2 from the Nikon D800 plus trinities, mostly because most of my photography is of mountain landscapes on long backpacking trips. I was reading reviews on the Sony FE 70-300 and was going to pull the trigger, but then my interest was piqued when I began reading about the light and solid Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S. Anyone used this combo hands on and have thoughts? I have the Novoflex apater already for my 14-24 and my other two lenses are the Loxia 21 and the Zony 55 1.8. I like the idea that the Nikon also would use the same filters as my 21. Cheers!



Jan 23, 2017 at 08:45 PM
navmannz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


I had it, Matt, and it had worked quite well for me on an M43 Olympus. However, it's shortcomings were rather cruelly exposed by the A7RII's sensor. It suffered a lot from color fringing around high contrast edges, and the outer zone was pretty rough until well stopped down. I sold mine, replacing it with a CV ApoLanthar 180, which is light-years ahead, though not cheap. An Apo-Telyt might also be worth looking at...

-John



Jan 23, 2017 at 09:51 PM
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


navmannz wrote:
I had it, Matt, and it had worked quite well for me on an M43 Olympus. However, it's shortcomings were rather cruelly exposed by the A7RII's sensor. It suffered a lot from color fringing around high contrast edges, and the outer zone was pretty rough until well stopped down. I sold mine, replacing it with a CV ApoLanthar 180, which is light-years ahead, though not cheap. An Apo-Telyt might also be worth looking at...

-John


+1

It was a nice lens on my D700, but moving to the D800 and now the A7RII showed the len's age quite dramatically. 180/4 CV, though twitchy to focus (but can be done on the A7 series) is much much better. Much higher contrast. Better across the whole frame even at f/4.



Jan 23, 2017 at 09:54 PM
mattpayne11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


navmannz wrote:
I had it, Matt, and it had worked quite well for me on an M43 Olympus. However, it's shortcomings were rather cruelly exposed by the A7RII's sensor. It suffered a lot from color fringing around high contrast edges, and the outer zone was pretty rough until well stopped down. I sold mine, replacing it with a CV ApoLanthar 180, which is light-years ahead, though not cheap. An Apo-Telyt might also be worth looking at...

-John


Thanks - that is too bad. The CV APO Lanthar usually goes for 10x the price of this old Nikkor. I may as well get the 70-300.




Jan 23, 2017 at 10:43 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


If you don't mind a little more weight, the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS is amazing and quite reasonably priced. I've used it with great results on D800e, a7R2 and 5DsR. So other than a tiny bit of color fringing and vignetting near wide open, it is great.




Jan 23, 2017 at 11:05 PM
navmannz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


mattpayne11 wrote:
Thanks - that is too bad. The CV APO Lanthar usually goes for 10x the price of this old Nikkor. I may as well get the 70-300.



I've heard very good reports of the Canon FD 80-200 F/4 L, and there are copies of that going you-know-where for between $150 and $250.



Jan 23, 2017 at 11:11 PM
Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


I'm sure stopped down the 200 is very nice, some reviews have it similar to the FDn 200 f4, which had issues wide open, but stopped down, very very strong, on par with a modern 200 prime if I had to guess. Pixel peeping, it was hard to tell what was sharper, my 70-200ii or the vintage prime. Downside is that you're at the mercy of flare. The older lenses can flare bad under some light conditions. I do a lot of cityscapes and the FDn would fail badly on occasion. The 70-300 doesnt have these issues, and also doesnt have the bite of the primes. I do find it good enough, 300mm is significant


Jan 23, 2017 at 11:14 PM
TakenWild
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


I have the FDn 200mm f4 on my A7R2 and I think of it as a f5.6-f8-f11 lens. Very lightweight and compact. At f8 it is sharper than a (now sold) FE 70-200 f4 @ 200mm at f-8-11, especially in the corners. As always you *MUST* flock your adapters in keep contrast and sharpness.

The is a lot of CA, but i find that not a problem and can be corrected.

Edited on Jan 26, 2017 at 07:59 AM · View previous versions



Jan 25, 2017 at 12:44 AM
austinschutz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


The Leica 180/3.4 seems a good alternative to the Voigtlander 180/4. Phillip Reeve I believe likes the Minolta 200/4, and I've seen quite a few people mention the Olympus 200/5. The 70-300 looks like a solid lens as well. I'd just get one of the MF 200s if I were you and see if it is acceptable for your needs. If you have to resell it, you shouldn't take much of a loss...and if you don't, it is a lot of money saved over the 70-300. Here is a 180/200mm comparison that Bastian did, it might be informative (includes the Minolta 200/4 and Leica 180/4, both are pretty affordable).

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/180mm200mm-prime-comparison/



Jan 25, 2017 at 02:39 AM
TakenWild
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


I tried the Minolta 200 f4 and it is far worse than the Canon FDn 200 f4. The Minolta has worse CA and never gets as sharp as the Canon stopped down. Below par compared to any good quality 70-200 zoom. I sold mine. The best thing about the Minolta is it had a great manual focus feel.

austinschutz wrote:
The Leica 180/3.4 seems a good alternative to the Voigtlander 180/4. Phillip Reeve I believe likes the Minolta 200/4, and I've seen quite a few people mention the Olympus 200/5. The 70-300 looks like a solid lens as well. I'd just get one of the MF 200s if I were you and see if it is acceptable for your needs. If you have to resell it, you shouldn't take much of a loss...and if you don't, it is a lot of money saved over the 70-300. Here is a 180/200mm comparison that Bastian did, it might be informative (includes the
...Show more



Jan 26, 2017 at 02:13 AM
joe256
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


Gunzorro wrote:
If you don't mind a little more weight, the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS is amazing and quite reasonably priced. I've used it with great results on D800e, a7R2 and 5DsR. So other than a tiny bit of color fringing and vignetting near wide open, it is great.



I've owned the 200/f4 AI and the 180/f2.8 AFD lenses at the same time, and the180/f2.8 AFD was much better (sharpness and bokeh) on the A7R2 and D800. It's not that big or expensive. Fashion photographer Ben Kanarek uses it and has written about it.

http://benjaminkanarekblog.com

I've also had the 180 AIS and the 180 AFD was a little sharper.




Jan 26, 2017 at 03:35 AM
TakenWild
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


As I mostly take landscapes (which includes mountain hiking), weight is important to me.
My light hiking kit is:
FE 16-35mm f4
CY 35-70mm f3.4
CY 100mm f3.5 on a shift adapter

If I was you I'd get the CY 100mm f3.5 and pickup a FDn Canon or the Nikon 200mm f4 (less sharp than the canon, even stopped down). I'm my opinion use the 200mm as an additional lens at f8-f11 for fine quality longer landscapes *if needed*. As they literally cost nothing and fairly good adapters don't cost much either.
I find a 100mm that is very sharp right from f3.5 and is very compact with 8-10mm of shift in any direction. A cheap, but very sharp 200mm f8-11 lens works really well with the CY100mm 3.5 for landscapes. I'm far happier not carrying a 70-200 up mountains and that alone as improved my telephoto hiking landscapes, let alone the fact that they sharper or at least as sharp as Sony's Tele zooms.



Jan 26, 2017 at 08:25 AM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


I know this sounds crazy, but the canon 75-300 III is surprisingly good for a landscape lens - i.e. f11

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=776&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

It only weighs 480g. I wouldn't really use it past 200mm unless in a pinch and wide open it's not good but it's the same weight as the canon 200mm f4 by itself and obviously gives you more focal length options. It's also only $200 bucks and you could get a MBIII for about $125 these days so that's $325 total.

For me my travel kit is evolving. it's hard because I like to take landscape shots as well as astro but I'm leaning toward:

A7r (465g)
16-35 FE (500g)
35-70 2.4 (475g)
75-300 III (480g)

That covers me from 16 - 200ish in 4lbs.

If I'm going to shoot the milky way, then I'll add either the Rokinon 14mm (500g) or a Batis 18 (330g) and a sony 28mm (200g). For portraits I have a canon 85 1.8mm (425). I'd like to trade that for a batis one of these days (475g).

Chris



Jan 26, 2017 at 02:44 PM
TakenWild
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?



Except the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS weakens after f8 across the frame. At f8 it is quite a bit sharper than the 70-300. I think the FDn will be more competitive here. But yes, it is more versatile. Some lenses seem suffer from diffraction quicker than others.


Schlotkins wrote:
I know this sounds crazy, but the canon 75-300 III is surprisingly good for a landscape lens - i.e. f11

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=4&LensComp=776&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=4

It only weighs 480g. I wouldn't really use it past 200mm unless in a pinch and wide open it's not good but it's the same weight as the canon 200mm f4 by itself and obviously gives you more focal length options. It's also only $200 bucks and you could get a MBIII for about $125 these days so that's $325 total.

For me my travel kit is evolving. it's hard because I like to take landscape shots as well as astro
...Show more



Jan 27, 2017 at 01:31 AM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


TakenWild wrote:
Except the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS weakens after f8 across the frame. At f8 it is quite a bit sharper than the 70-300. I think the FDn will be more competitive here. But yes, it is more versatile. Some lenses seem suffer from diffraction quicker than others.



Yea I was just trying to come up that would be pretty good at landscape apertures. by the time you add a 100 3.5 Contax and the 200 f4 you have the weight of the 70-200 f4 IS. I usually don't shoot much past 70 for landscapes and was considering adding that lens just in case I needed it. I'll probably grab one and do some real life comparisons.




Jan 27, 2017 at 02:02 AM
Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


Schlotkins wrote:
Yea I was just trying to come up that would be pretty good at landscape apertures. by the time you add a 100 3.5 Contax and the 200 f4 you have the weight of the 70-200 f4 IS. I usually don't shoot much past 70 for landscapes and was considering adding that lens just in case I needed it. I'll probably grab one and do some real life comparisons.


I think you are mistaken on lenses, the 75-300 iii is generally a poorly rated lens. Check out Bryan C's review on it. Canon does have another 70-300, they just produced, the 70-300 mk2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

should be the best budget zoom, but the price is half the sony price, so it's getting up there.



Jan 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?



It's not the lightest, but what about the C/Y 100-300? Weight would be the big detriment and the filter size is 67.

-Tim



Jan 27, 2017 at 12:13 PM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


Charlie N wrote:
I think you are mistaken on lenses, the 75-300 iii is generally a poorly rated lens. Check out Bryan C's review on it. Canon does have another 70-300, they just produced, the 70-300 mk2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

should be the best budget zoom, but the price is half the sony price, so it's getting up there.


No, I had the right lens. Look at the crops under 200mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=776&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

It's better than that zoom. And it's $159 refurb and it's only 480g. I'm not sure what copy variation will be, but if you can get a copy as good as bryan's and it's for landscape shots that is probably a good option

The Contax 100-300 is supposed to be amazing, but it's 900g+ if weight is important.



Jan 27, 2017 at 12:27 PM
Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


at that one focal length/aperture combo, the 75-300 has it beat, but you can stop down the 70-300ii to F11, and it's closed up quite a bit. The 75-300 never gets good at 300 (or even 200).

bryan's own words: If you care about great image quality and sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is not for you. And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there.

the lens looks OK from 75-135, but if that's all you care for, then simply look for an older 70-200 f4 L non IS, you can snatch up for around 400-500. Sure, that's a bit more, but it's quite a bit better.
Schlotkins wrote:
No, I had the right lens. Look at the crops under 200mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1077&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=776&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

It's better than that zoom. And it's $159 refurb and it's only 480g. I'm not sure what copy variation will be, but if you can get a copy as good as bryan's and it's for landscape shots that is probably a good option

The Contax 100-300 is supposed to be amazing, but it's 900g+ if weight is important.





Jan 27, 2017 at 01:46 PM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Nikon 200 f/4 ai-S on Sony A7r2?


Charlie N wrote:
at that one focal length/aperture combo, the 75-300 has it beat, but you can stop down the 70-300ii to F11, and it's closed up quite a bit. The 75-300 never gets good at 300 (or even 200).

bryan's own words: If you care about great image quality and sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is not for you. And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there.

the lens looks OK from 75-135, but if that's all you care for, then simply look for an older 70-200 f4 L non IS, you can snatch up for around
...Show more

I'm not arguing with you there. I have the 70-200 f4 IS. However, it's pretty big and heavy to take along traveling if you don't know if you are going to use it that much. The 75-300 III is 40% lighter and 40% smaller. By itself it's the same weight/size as the 200mm FD Canon f4. I'm not saying it's IQ will be 100% as good, but my guess is it would work. And it's cheap.

Bryan is clearly not referring to using the lens from just 75 to 150. I think we can all agree it looks pretty good (That's a 50mpx sensor on the crops.) He's talking about how it is not good wide open or at 300mm. I'm not talking about using it under those conditions.

On an aside, I don't know if he had a different copy for his 1ds mark III crops because I agree those look awful even at 135 where on the 5dsr it looks good.

Certainly, if you don't care about weight/size, the Contax 100-300 is the way to go or the modern 70-200 f2.8/f4 options.





Jan 27, 2017 at 02:29 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.