Phillip Reeve wrote:
I tried my new Minolta MC 300/5.6 for the first time, my observations:
contrast ist pretty low
...as ist microcontrast
significant PF
300mm are pretty hard to handhold
After some PP i like the results, nice zoo-tele.
My Ai-S nonED Nikkor 300/4.5 has better contrast and less PF but it is more unwieldily.
After trying Minolta 300/5.6 and 300/4.5 on the NEX5N I gave up.Nikon 300/4.5 is better of the two,but despite one ED lens it is still too soft wo and has too much CAs either.Rule of the thumb after a few years of experience:majority of legacy lenses above 28mm and under 200mm can not match contempoprary digital sensors.Without significant amount of PP their images are technically inferior compared to contemporary lenses.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I tried my new Minolta MC 300/5.6 for the first time, my observations:
contrast ist pretty low
...as ist microcontrast
significant PF
300mm are pretty hard to handhold
After some PP i like the results, nice zoo-tele.
My Ai-S nonED Nikkor 300/4.5 has better contrast and less PF but it is more unwieldily.
After trying Minolta 300/5.6 and 300/4.5 on the NEX5N I gave up.Nikon 300/4.5 is better of the two,but despite one ED lens it is still too soft wo and has too much CAs either.Rule of the thumb after a few years of experience:majority of legacy lenses above 28mm and under 200mm can not match contempoprary digital sensors.Without significant amount of PP their images are technically inferior compared to contemporary lenses.
Jan 26, 2013 at 01:39 PM
Previous versions of Peire's message #11300948 « Sony (APS-C) Images Thread »
