p.1 #1 · Mitakon Zhongyi 200/4 1:1 Macro flying under the radar?
I tripped over this lens on eBay, and I'm a little shocked at the lack of mention on FM in any forum. The few B&H comments seem really positive. All major DSLR/MILC mounts are supported. Okay, it's a boat anchor but you'll be using a tripod anyway. The key feature is apo correction, and that's been hard to achieve at this FL, let alone with 1:1 capability. Discussions on this topic always center on the aged screwdriver Nikkor 200/4D Micro (discontinued, fringey), aged Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro (expensive), and the C/V 180 (mythical). Meanwhile, this is $4-500 depending on mount. Even Canon RF and Nikon Z versions are offered.
From a pure macro perspective I would rather adapt a 180mm makro-symmar, which comfortably covers medium format and is diffraction limited across the frame from wide open.
p.1 #3 · Mitakon Zhongyi 200/4 1:1 Macro flying under the radar?
@thrice Thanks, that was a sobering analysis if not downright disappointing. I'm lining up a 200mm macro capability for my Alpha system, and the best contender is currently the Sony 70-200/4G 1:2 Macro where I can reach 1:1 with a Canon 500D closeup diopter. The Canon EF is still a competitive optic but I don't want to go that route.
p.1 #5 · Mitakon Zhongyi 200/4 1:1 Macro flying under the radar?
ftllens wrote:
I'd recommend this lens for this FL macro:
Funny, I discovered the Laowa 180/4.5 macro on the Phillip Reeve web site just 10min ago! It sure looks much closer to the long-range macro that I was seeking, although not quite reaching 200mm. At least Laowa has a very strong record for macro lenses of every crazy variety. This one offers 1.5x, apo correction, low weight, all mounts supported, and AF at greater distances.
p.1 #7 · Mitakon Zhongyi 200/4 1:1 Macro flying under the radar?
I tried the Mitakon when I had the GFX 50sII. It was decent so long as you were in total control of the lighting. The absence of flare resistance killed it for me. I preferred the Laowa 150/2.8 in F and the Kenko 1.4x for 210/5.6. No coverage issues with either bare lens or extended.
You've forgotten the Minolta 200/4 Macro, which, last I checked, is both expensive and rare.
The 70-200GII and Canon 500D aren't your only choices for the focal length. The 100/2.8GM Macro gets there with the 2x and has a surprising edge over the zoom. I still prefer the zoom, because I find myself bouncing between focal lengths, but I had to test them both, and the 100GM is a little wonder.
p.1 #8 · Mitakon Zhongyi 200/4 1:1 Macro flying under the radar?
@freaklikeme I confess to being somewhat ignorant of the Minolta A-mount lenses (except the 135 STF). The 200/4 G Macro looks like a monster performer based on opinions at Dyxum. I'm pretty settled on the 70-200G II for its general utility, AF, optical excellence, weight and 1:2. I can reach native 1:1 using other primes in my arsenal (CZ S-Planar 60, Sigma 70mm EX DG, CZ S-Planar 100). I'll keep the Laowa 180 at the back of my mind.
p.1 #9 · Mitakon Zhongyi 200/4 1:1 Macro flying under the radar?
Yeah, the MD 50/3.5 and 100/4 were both great close focusers for the SR mount, and they continued that tradition with the AF 50/2.8 and 100/2.8. I think the 200/4 was a "we'll show Nikon" lens, but, really, all they proved was that they could make a lens as well as Nikon. I didn't see any significant differences between them. I do still use the AF 50/2.8 (in Sony clothes, since it was cheaper and has a better focus ring) and the MD 100/4. For what they are, I don't see that anyone's made anything better.
There's always the Sigma 180/2.8 (EF, F, A, and SA). It's a beast. If I remember correctly, it weighed more than my 70-200/2.8GII in A and had an 86mm filter. I still have no idea what I would do with it, but it's one lens I kind of regret selling. There was and is nothing else like it for close focus.
