Great stuff Jim. That 200 looks great! There is a mint one up for grabs but I don't know what the going prices are for it so I can't tell whether it's a good deal or not.
I will look up Fotodiox. If two adapters will still give a snug fit I might go for it.
kosmoskatten wrote:
...There is a mint one up for grabs but I don't know what the going prices are for it so I can't tell whether it's a good deal or not.
The average eBay price for an A 200/2.8 APO in near Mint [M-] condition has risen slightly from $617 US in the online Lens$db_v14 (June 1, 2010) to $630US now, in v15 (under construction).
Thank you!
That does help out in the decision making. The lens is listed lower than that and "as new" so maybe I should go for it.
However, I am quite happy with the ZA135/1.8 and 200mm is quite close in focal length so I am a bit hesitant. With the Mammy 120/4 that is on the way to me it will be perhaps too many tele lenses around the same focal length in the bag. I see the 120/4 as something of a specialty lens and I am leaning towards getting the MIrex adapter for it. I would not mind a regular adapter either as the Mirex is a bit clumsy for every day use.
Jim; you are doing magic with the 200/2.8 but how is the 120/4 for long range shooting?
Good, very good or excellent?
I generally use the A 120/4 Macro for only macro shooting, and so I can't comment on its ...oh, just saw your edit. No worries. They're all good. The A 200 APO is incredibly good.
Henrik,
Thanks alot for your comments.It was actually a comment you made a while back in another thread about MF 200MM lenses that had me seeking out the Mamiya 200.
IMHO the 120f4 is very good to outstanding @infinity, absolutely no distortion.One thing you will experience when you receive your 120 f4 is that it has one of the most precise focus throws that i have used.Now i know that you have used many more lenses than i have so maybe you have come across others that are just as precise, you can almost breath on the thing and change where you critical focus will be.
-Jim
This thread has swung me back into photography, or rather, the urge to go out and take/make pictures.
Jim C: Thanks for chiming in. Always appreciate it!
Jim S: The 200 is very tempting. To think that I dug that hole for you and might end up in it too. Haha! The ZA135/1.8 is no slouch either. If I didn't have it already I would not hesitate to get the 200. The longest telephoto I have is the 135 and I guess I could replace it with the 120/4 and the 200/2.8 for what I do but I think I'd better go easy on my wallet so I can afford to go somewhere with what I have.
I hear you on the focus throw, I don't mind it for that type of lens. How is the throw on the 200?
JJ: Great use of the Mirex (you are sporting one, right?). I noticed the trunk of the GT is banged up some, it doesn't line up and has a small dent in it. You shouldn't take such sharp photos man...
From the NY Pin Up Club burlesque show this past Thursday. My first event (I had been given a promo card and was encouraged to join back in April) and it was disappointing - "pros" and "amateurs" only, no photographers - every single person using a fully auto dSLR, on AF, bursting the shutter release, some using an articulating LCD for no reason. At best, they were well exposed standard shots. The only variety was whether flash was used (no, not even brackets either) and how much was paid for the lens and body. The performers, on the whole, were disappointing, with one very notable exception.
Before I went, I did have a look at their site and while some work was good, I now understand why it was the minority. Too much looks like point and shoot work.
I was hoping to learn something from someone. You'd think *someone* would at least bring a press camera.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I hear you on the focus throw, I don't mind it for that type of lens. How is the throw on the 200?
Looks like it's exactly 180 degrees. The infinity mark ends up at 6 o' clock at MFD.
I find focusing and supporting this heavy lens at the same time a bit tough sometimes.
kosmoskatten wrote:
JJ: Great use of the Mirex (you are sporting one, right?). I noticed the trunk of the GT is banged up some, it doesn't line up and has a small dent in it. You shouldn't take such sharp photos man...
That's a fair call re the GT. It's a historic circuit car, lots of little battle scars, say no more...
Yes, Mirex. The Mirex is a worthwhile investment, depending of course on how you shoot.
JJ: you have a keen eye for finding lines and compositions when shooting cars. I figured the Mirex would work well for some macro shots, hence the interest in it.
AhamB: is that lens still up for grabs? The lens I spotted was New in Box for around 480 Euros. What Fotodiox adapter was it coming with? I don't think it would be the right adapter for me since I shoot Sony.
Conner: hmm, that isn't much of a throw but I think I can manage that. The viewfinder on the Sony A900 is superb and will help out.
So, you have both the 150/2.8 and the 200/2.8? How good is that 150? It looks quite manageable and a focal length that is right up my alley. The 200 does not surface that often but I know of several 150/2.8's that are listed pretty low in pricing, and off *bay so straight pricing.
Oh, and Jim, I will have to really put in an effort to match your images. (edit: goes for all three J:s) I like your post pro as well, well executed. Thanks for the additional sample of what the 120/4 can do.
I will see if I can dig up some old film based images from when I was shooting the M645.
I had the 80/1.9 and the 150/3.5 if memory serves me well. It was fifteen years ago, at least.
The 150/2.8 is VERY good. It's ULD (like the 120/4) and thus while not APO per se, shows excellent CA control. Resolution is not quite in 200/APO or 120/4 territory, but very close. My copy was old stock NIB and has buttery smooth focus. Has a pull-out hood. Size and weight-wise I often get it and the 120/4 by mistake when grabbing them out of the bag - almost identical.
It has typical M645 high-res but lower macro contrast and nice tonality. The APO lenses, in comparison, tends to be a smidgen more punchy in terms of contrast and saturation. The 150 A pulls WELL above it's price point.
Conner; excellent info, just what one needs to hear when you can't really try them out beforehand. The 150 is such a bargain (price wise) that I could probably just snatch one to try it out. The 200 would set me back some and even though I have seen what it can do I don't use telephoto all that much to justify keeping a 120, a 135 and a 200 in the stable. Let alone a bargain buy 150 on top of that. The only thing putting me off the 200 a bit is the apparent front heavy-ness of it and the sheer size.
Hey Conner999. Hang on tight. It looks like the eye of Earl will be passing over Halifax in a couple of hours. He's headed straight towards you. I figure the leading edge of the eye wall will be here in 20 to 30 minutes.
Henrik,
thanks again for your comments.I am learning with the Mamiya glass, that many times to get the images to look their 'best' is to increase contrast more so than the shadows.At first i was darkening the shadows and not increasing the contrast and this IMO muddied up the tones.By going lighter on the shadows and a bit heavier on the contrast and a boost in saturation it seems to have a more pleasing look to the eye.All my images are processed in Canon's free but very effective DPP
-Jim
