Fair enough Steve, can we at least agree that it as special in terms of size? I could be wrong, but it is the smallest solution that the OP could consider at 200mm (there are others that may be smaller if you include "close" FLs.)
-Tim
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't believe him that it is all that special. Olympus designated some of the their OM lenses as ED, like the 100 f/2 ED, and their fast super telephotos lenses. This lens they did not. Neither does the Mir resource for Olympus OM lenses mention it, and instead they describe it as always being a budget lens:
All that leads me to believe if it has special glass it is not likely to be the special glass that is effective in reducing lateral CA --that is the real problem with these telephotos. Even the 100 f/2 ED, which I own and has the ED label and was considered a premium lens in its time, really only partially corrects for these aberrations at a focal length that is much easier to correct....Show more →
Mar 29, 2019 at 09:25 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
realVivek wrote:
Whether you believe the lens will cut it or not what is not to believe about Marco Cavina?
Nothing. What I don't believe is that what he refers to as special glass is the expensive sort that Olympus used in their lenses that was designed to reduce lateral CA. Those lenses they designated as ED and were not budget lenses and even those were pretty early in the development of such glass and don't completely hold up to controlling CA in comparison with more modern lenses.
tsdevine wrote:
Fair enough Steve, can we at least agree that it as special in terms of size? I could be wrong, but it is the smallest solution that the OP could consider at 200mm (there are others that may be smaller if you include "close" FLs.)
-Tim
Yes, very much. It is special in terms of size and Olympus was very good at that with this lens being a prime example of that capability.
coin toss between the olympus 200 f5 and canon 200 f4. I'm still sorting out infinity issues with canon, but I'de give that a slight edge. It's noticably brighter, and better contrast, has the "coated" look, while the oly has a flatish look to it. Size is not far apart only about a cm difference in length. Sometimes that can make a difference with the bag, like with the 5L, the canon is very tight fit, while the OM is a comfortable fit.
Mar 29, 2019 at 09:59 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
trogdon wrote:
The Sigma 180mm 5.6 APO would fall into that category of CA suppression you are looking for. It still has some lateral CA’s (the kind quite easily corrected with photoshop), but longitudinal CA’s and purple fringing are non-existent even from wide open at 5.6.
An interesting option that I haven't paid any attention to before. I didn't consider any of the macro before assuming they would not be small, but this one at f/5.6 is. How is the infinity performance? How is the build quality as this was made in the old Sigma days when build quality was kind of so-so at best.
Charlie N wrote:
coin toss between the olympus 200 f5 and canon 200 f4. I'm still sorting out infinity issues with canon, but I'de give that a slight edge. It's noticably brighter, and better contrast, has the "coated" look, while the oly has a flatish look to it. Size is not far apart only about a cm difference in length. Sometimes that can make a difference with the bag, like with the 5L, the canon is very tight fit, while the OM is a comfortable fit.
200/4 Nikon - OK, just OK
180/3.4 APO Telyt - Great, but big and heavy
180/4 CV APO - It's actually pretty great at infinity, it's just really hard to nail the focus (which is why many people say it's not great at infinity), but it's decently sized and weight is OK. I take this on vacation.
135/3.4 APO Telyt + crop to 200mm: Excellent at infinity, decently light and decent size.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, very much. It is special in terms of size and Olympus was very good at that with this lens being a prime example of that capability.
I used the Olympus OM 3.5/135 for many years and it was an excellent lens, one of the sharpest I had (but I sold it when moving to DSLR, so don't know how it performs there). Very small and very affordable lens, Olympus was very good at producing such gems. Probably 200mm is already a step up in difficulty for controlling CA; my OM 4.5/300 while also very sharp had more CA/PF problems ;-(
hanay78 wrote:
Who is the big brother in the left?
left to right
tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc
contax 100-300 + leitax adapter
canon new fd 200mm f4
olympus OM 200mm f5
I wish the answer for a small 200mm was as simple, the canon and olympus check many boxes, however both have their flaws. The 100-300 is too big and heavy for travel. The 70-200 f2.8 is there for size comparisons, occasionally use it for event shooting, and does the job fine on the A9, not so well on the R3, however it's main intent is to be joined with the A9.
Charlie N wrote:
I wish the answer for a small 200mm was as simple, the canon and olympus check many boxes, however both have their flaws. The 100-300 is too big and heavy for travel. The 70-200 f2.8 is there for size comparisons, occasionally use it for event shooting, and does the job fine on the A9, not so well on the R3, however it's main intent is to be joined with the A9.
Sad that on all major ILC platforms lenses like this (compact f/2.8-f/4 200mm with excellent optics and up-to-date AF) are lacking while one generation ago almost every manufacturer offered such a lens (most of them with MF of course). For compact/light 300mm the situation is similar, except for the Nikon 300PF. The most recent Canon lenses with such spec are nearly 25 years old and Sony completely lacks such 200-300mm lenses.
Lens technology has improved significantly over the last 25 years so improvements over the older lenses should be possible. I understand it is easier to sell tele zooms (smaller/cheaper ones with compromised optics or higher quality ones that are big and heavy) but it seems to me there is an opportunity here - maybe even for a compact MF 200mm that is more affordable than the 180mm Apo Lanthar (Samyang, Tamron, anyone?).
Thanksfor the answer!!!! What are you doing? What was your choice?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, the OP did ask for small and with the MC-11 it is about 900 grams has a 83mm diameter and is 136mm long. Unfortunately to me that is not small. It is a good optic, however, and would probably be my choice if AF were a priority but many in that situation would be looking at one of the Sony zooms. I really hope Sony makes a small nice lens in this range, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think if they make a 200, it will be a 200 f/2.
Like Bastian, telephotos this long (and in my view even shorter) really need some sort of special glass (ED, APD, fluorite, etc.) to control CA. That rules out a number of options including the wonderfully sized Olympus OM 200 f/5 and 200 f/4. It rules out all the Minolta MC and MD glass. It rules out all of the Zeiss lenses as well except the huge, quirky, and expensive 200 f/2 APO. It rules out the Nikon 200 f/4 (Q, K, Ai, or AiS, none of them have special glass to reduce CA). So to me that leaves the 1) Voigtlander 180 f/4 APO, which is wonderfully small and excellent close up, but I think a bit less excellent at infinity focus and it is ridiculously expensive these days. 2) The Nikon 180 f/2.8 ED (the AiS version is probably best for Sony) -- quite decent performance but not fully corrected for CA and a very nice price but at 800g before the adapter it isn't light and its pretty long and fat too, so not that small. 3) The Pentax A* 200 f/2.8 ED - this is a very nice lens and quite well corrected, unfortunately it is bigger than either the Nikon or Canon and still fairly expensive. 4) The Minolta AF 200 f/2.8 APO -- this lens is a quite good performer but like the Nikon and Canon AF lenses is quite large and pretty heavy. In addition you need to use the LAEA - 4 adapter which is not light, and limits performance quite a bit. 5) the Canon 200 f/2.8L describe above, and what was my choice the 6) Leica R 180 f/3.4 APO, which is far from a perfect lens, but is a quite strong performer at infinity. It is pretty heavy at 750g (before the adapter) and although it is as long as the others is much skinnier than anything except the Voigtlander at 68mm in diameter. As Rich pointed out it also has the trick up its sleeve that it can become a quite decent 360 f/6.8 lens is you add the Leica 2X APO teleconverter. Mine was stolen and I haven't replace it yet and I am ambivalent about doing so. On one hand it is bigger than I would like and it is starting to show it age (top lenses like the Leica 180 f/2.8 APO are clearly better), but on the other hand nothing has been made for a long time at this focal length and I am not convinced anything will be made and for my type of shooting (mostly infinity focus landscapes) this lens really does as well as anything except the larger and much more expensive Leica R 180 f/2.8 APO. I hope Voigtlander makes a new version of the 180 f/4 APO, but they even shortened the 125 f/2.5 APO Macro to 110. I am not at all sure they want to or there is much if any money to be made in a lens this long....Show more →
Mar 29, 2019 at 01:14 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hanay78 wrote:
Thanksfor the answer!!!! What are you doing? What was your choice?
I haven't really decided what I am going to do next. I might get the Leica R 180 f/3.4 APO again, but it is bigger than I like. I also think I have basically decided to get a Nikon Z7 and with that camera I think I may skip the 180-200 focal length and go from 135mm to their lovely 300 f/4 PF that is only 755g and is really no bigger than the 200 f/2.8 lenses mentioned above. With the 300 reach (and 420 with a 1.4X TC) that seems to me to be much more worth the weight and size.
I think you are going to have to weigh the different aspects of image quality, speed, size, weight, etc and then look at options in this thread to see what candidates tick the boxes or score against your prioritized criteria.
Based on this thread and other similar ones, I'm not sure there is a "killer" solution at this FL where small is in the drivers seat. I know I found a compromise that I'm happy with, given the choices that I'm aware of.
-Tim
hanay78 wrote:
Thanksfor the answer!!!! What are you doing? What was your choice?
I read your previous posts and the the comparison on Fred and order one OM f5. I am afraid that yours is somehow special, what i ordered is definitedly not MC. It had a low prize and decided to give it a try. It look to be the smallest of all...
I am afraid i will try them all and remain unsatisfied but because of different reasons! Thinking on ordering the telyt for comparison...
I am lost
tsdevine wrote:
I think you are going to have to weigh the different aspects of image quality, speed, size, weight, etc and then look at options in this thread to see what candidates tick the boxes or score against your prioritized criteria.
Based on this thread and other similar ones, I'm not sure there is a "killer" solution at this FL where small is in the drivers seat. I know I found a compromise that I'm happy with, given the choices that I'm aware of.
It's easy to reject the 'constant crop' idea needed to use a 135mm of mobile, travel-friendly dimensions to reach out to 180-200mm. Too close to 100mm to offer much real advantage at native FL, and binning the edges would feel very wasteful when done on a frequent basis. It has to be a V180/4 of the same tier as the 110/2.5 and 65/2. We all know they are close to the best these days, and the solid base of the old 180/4 is an excellent springboard.
How to upgrade an already great lens, a very recent history lesson:
The V110/2.5 is a 14/12 design at 770 grams; the old V125/2.5 was an 11/9 at 690 grams. So Cosina constrained the weight increase impressively in a high tech, new age lens; it picked up just 12% of grammage. It only grew from 88mm x 76mm to 100mm x 78mm (14% in length, unchanged diameter). Filter size remained unchanged at 58mm.
Now that is a company that understands real world photographers, their needs and their gear handling limitations. They understood it in 2003 and they understand it in 2019. It's easy to see which outfit deserves the support of people who work in the field. It's the difference between a company of great energy and empathy, and those who display engineering negligence and contempt for their own user base.
Mar 29, 2019 at 04:45 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Interesting comparison. The Canon never lets up with CA, even at f8 (look at the purple fringing around the foilage).
I think the Nikkor being tested has been dropped as mine has no edge resolution issues.
I just checked and $155 buys the Nikkor in mint condition delivered.
Insanely good value.
It was shot on APS-C that edge resolution would be a mid zone dip. Both have tons of CA and lateral CA does not decrease with stopping down, so no surprise that it is still there stopped down.
I feel your pain. It's definitely worth asking people for ideas here, and it's always hard to gauge what one person finds as good vs. another. Then you add in the fact that you don't know if when you finally pull the trigger and find that a lens isn't quite performing as you expect, is it that particular copy of the lens? Is it just average and maybe someone here has a unicorn copy? Is it just a difference in what one person feels is good vs great?
Absolutely been there.....
-Tim
hanay78 wrote:
I read your previous posts and the the comparison on Fred and order one OM f5. I am afraid that yours is somehow special, what i ordered is definitedly not MC. It had a low prize and decided to give it a try. It look to be the smallest of all...
I am afraid i will try them all and remain unsatisfied but because of different reasons! Thinking on ordering the telyt for comparison...
