p.17 #1 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Earlier in this thread I posted crops WO from a 42MP FF sensor and I thought it was pretty impressive, even at f2.8 into the far corners. I would love to see similar crops with the 200 2.8L--if it is better, I wonder if it would be appreciable beyond pixel peeping at crops. I have found, like you and others, colors and contrasts very consequential and good Minolta glass has it in spades, like Zeiss and Leica IMO. I do wonder if the canon would be perceptual lower resolution/flatter because of this.
I haven't used the Canon since the DsIII, but David tested in on the rIII for PR.
Thanks--I didn't know PR reviewed that. From what it looks like, close sharpness wise--maybe the Mino is slightly ahead in the extreme corners as the 200L looks like it takes a bit more for the corners to match the center? The Canon does seem to offer the better usability with swift quiet AF, weathering sealing and still in production. Flare control would be better too I bet. I'd still impractically prefer the Mino is my guess though being a bit perfectionistic/neurotic about these things.
p.17 #3 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks--I didn't know PR reviewed that. From what it looks like, close sharpness wise--maybe the Mino is slightly ahead in the extreme corners as the 200L looks like it takes a bit more for the corners to match the center? The Canon does seem to offer the better usability with swift quiet AF, weathering sealing and still in production. Flare control would be better too I bet. I'd still impractically prefer the Mino is my guess though being a bit perfectionistic/neurotic about these things.
Thanks for the link though.
The Canon looks sharper to me, but it is close. I'd take the Mino because it would be, overall, more useful to me. Actually, if it weren't for the fact that it's a shorter lens with the same MFD, I'd take the Nikon 180/2.8 ED over the other two.
p.17 #4 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
I never found the Canon 200/2.8L II that great. Nothing to write about regarding resolution and contrast wide open, although it's excellent at f/5.6. For landscapes, the extreme corners never achieve great levels though.
Last year, I tried a brand new copy on my A7R III and the results were underwhelming to say the least. I will try finding some crops at infinity distance.
p.17 #5 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
I never found the Canon 200/2.8L II that great. Nothing to write about regarding resolution and contrast wide open, although it's excellent at f/5.6. For landscapes, the extreme corners never achieve great levels though.
Last year, I tried a brand new copy on my A7R III and the results were underwhelming to say the least. I will try finding some crops at infinity distance.
I think you may have had some bad luck with copies, but i I know you tried more than once.
It's not that contrasty wide open, but sharp enough, and it's extraordinarily even.
Rogers Cicala's MTF shows the evenness, and the copy I tested got quite sharp across the whole field.
Having said that I agree with Roger's take: not as good as the latest EF 2.8/70-200; better than the previous one. But a lot smaller and lighter.
Which adapter did you use? I think it's likely. due to the way the elements move, sensitive to exact adapter length being correct, otherwise you might have induced FC?
p.17 #6 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
DavidBM wrote:
I think you may have had some bad luck with copies, but i I know you tried more than once.
It's not that contrasty wide open, but sharp enough, and it's extraordinarily even.
Rogers Cicala's MTF shows the evenness, and the copy I tested got quite sharp across the whole field.
Having said that I agree with Roger's take: not as good as the latest EF 2.8/70-200; better than the previous one. But a lot smaller and lighter.
Which adapter did you use? I think it's likely. due to the way the elements move, sensitive to exact adapter length being correct, otherwise you might have induced FC?
I've used the FE 200/2.8L II on Canon for many years but never really gave it a good test back then. I thought it worked great for portraits and action on a ~20MP sensor.
I could not find my test on the Sony but remember the mid-zone started to deteriorate and the corners were not sharp wide open. At f/5.6 things improved considerably but it could never compete with lenses like the 100-400 GM @200mm. During that time I was super spoiled by the Batis 135/2.8's performance and thought the Canon could come close but it was not the case.
I acquired the Minolta 200/2.8 APO and it's definitely sharper from center to corner wide open. I found it to perform very well even on the A7R IV. Yesterday I received the 1.4x APO teleconverter and will test it at 200mm and 280mm against the Contax 100-300. I'm very curious to see the results.
p.17 #8 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Also, the adapter I used with it was the Sigma MC-11.
Interesting. I have never found it's peak sharpness to be huge (and it's for sure it's less sharp than the GM 100-400, since it's noticeably less sharp than the latest Canon zoom)
But what surprises me is the unevenness. My copy was pretty much the same across the field, surprisingly so, and so were the lensrentals samples (or, of course, they were perhaps very different and averaged out to even across the field!)
EDIT: Oh for sure, the Batis is way ahead, you don't even have to peep! The Batis one of my treasured lenses. I know that thew GM is faster perhaps better still, but the Batis is astonishingly good in a very accessible and travel friendly form factor. There comes a point when I think "better than this will make no difference to me" and the Batis is one of the maybe half dozen lenses that pass that test for me...
p.17 #9 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've used the FE 200/2.8L II on Canon for many years but never really gave it a good test back then. I thought it worked great for portraits and action on a ~20MP sensor.
I could not find my test on the Sony but remember the mid-zone started to deteriorate and the corners were not sharp wide open. At f/5.6 things improved considerably but it could never compete with lenses like the 100-400 GM @200mm. During that time I was super spoiled by the Batis 135/2.8's performance and thought the Canon could come close but it was not the case.
I acquired the Minolta 200/2.8 APO and it's definitely sharper from center to corner wide open. I found it to perform very well even on the A7R IV. Yesterday I received the 1.4x APO teleconverter and will test it at 200mm and 280mm against the Contax 100-300. I'm very curious to see the results. ...Show more →
I am very curious about this comparison as well. Having owned both several times, I would not be surprised if the Minolta w/1.4x is as good or better than the CY 100-300 at @280, and in fact, I think it will be. I haven't shot crops, but I was surprised how little IQ loss I saw with the 1.4x in actual usage so far, but I also haven't peeped into the extreme corners. I always found the CY to be stronger on the 100mm and weaken as I went to 300mm, and that was consistent across my copies.
Will you be comparing the Minolta 200 w/1.4x to the 100-400 GM? Also, I've never shot the 100-400 GM. How would you compare the colors and contrast to the CY and Mino?
p.17 #10 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
I wonder how the APO 100-300/4.5-5.6 holds up against the Contax 100-300. The Mino zoom was a real sleeper, if you get a good copy. Mine was at its best from 200-300. I sold it because the manual focus experience was terrible, but, given the price, size, and weight, it might be worth a shot on the new adapter. The OOC colors are a little flatter than the typical Minolta but, profiled, it shouldn't make much difference. Plus, there's a distance encoded version (D), if you want five-axis IBIS with the lens.
p.17 #11 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
While I love the Minolta 100-300 APO D, it isn't known for its sharpness. It has a lower contrast to it that works really well. I love it for what it is, but wouldn't use it for landscapes.
p.17 #13 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
While I love the Minolta 100-300 APO D, it isn't known for its sharpness. It has a lower contrast to it that works really well. I love it for what it is, but wouldn't use it for landscapes.
Mine was good on 24MP if I treated it like a constant f/8 lens, but I felt much the same way about the Contax. I just didn't own them at the same time, or use either of them extensively enough to know how they compare.
p.17 #15 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've used the FE 200/2.8L II on Canon for many years but never really gave it a good test back then. I thought it worked great for portraits and action on a ~20MP sensor.
I could not find my test on the Sony but remember the mid-zone started to deteriorate and the corners were not sharp wide open. At f/5.6 things improved considerably but it could never compete with lenses like the 100-400 GM @200mm. During that time I was super spoiled by the Batis 135/2.8's performance and thought the Canon could come close but it was not the case.
I acquired the Minolta 200/2.8 APO and it's definitely sharper from center to corner wide open. I found it to perform very well even on the A7R IV. Yesterday I received the 1.4x APO teleconverter and will test it at 200mm and 280mm against the Contax 100-300. I'm very curious to see the results. ...Show more →
Is this comparison still on the table Fred? I am curious!
p.17 #18 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
jacquesvroom wrote:
Gentleman at B+H today told me they now expect first receipt in mid-November, instead of later this week! Anyone have better news?? 🍀🍀🍀😢
Arrrgh! I don't want to hear that! I've got six lovely a-mount lenses sitting here waiting.
