200mm lens

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
ACIPhotos
Heirophant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Plymouth Devon
Contact:

200mm lens

Unread postby ACIPhotos » Sat May 12, 2012 9:00 pm

Hi Everyone. I'm looking for a decent zoom lens to 200mm for my A850. Don't want to spend a lot of money but it needs to be as really good one. Any ideas?? (Bear in mind my standard lens is a Zeiss 24mm - 70mm and my really long lens a Sigma 150 - 500mm so this is the quality I'm looking for.) :?:
Anna

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Sat May 12, 2012 9:24 pm

You have a bit of a problem because this range has been more than just neglected since 1990-something. My favourites have still to be, in current new availability, the discontinued Sigma HSM 70-200mm f2.8 mark II macro, and the still current non-SSM (screw focus) Tamron f2.8 in the same range. Of the two I prefer the Sigma. I don't like the latest Sigma OS model because they lost the close focus.

I'm using a secondhand Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 AF, mostly because nothing significantly better has been made since 1985. It has a close 1.1m focus, internal focusing, constant aperture, and though people criticise it for such things a purple fringes I can be objective about this - you'll get more purple fringes from a brand new Tamron 18-200mm VC for NEX, than you will ever see from a 'beercan'. I found more magenta/green CA on Canon's 70-200mm f/4 compared a couple of months ago, and I was unable to remove it where I could clean up the 70-200mm Minolta perfectly using the auto function ACR. We tend to forget that most opinions on the 'beercan' were formed in the era of the Dynax 7D to Alpha 100, before any kind of auto or manual CA removal existed in raw converters. Today, lenses need to be reassessed taking into account the capabilities of programs like the current Lightroom/ACR, C1 Pro, Aperture or DxO Optics Pro.

Surprising alternatives which I have found useful include the Tokina AT-X 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6; this lens is peculiar in its contrast or lack of it, and its mix of great sharpness with a high likelihood of decentering. Only spoiled by its lack of a decent close focus, the original 1980s Minolta 100-200mm f4.5 is the exact opposite - very high contrast and nearly always perfect (also, 'fixed' by new converters). And then there's the ultimate dark horse, the Minolta 35-200mm f/4.5-5.6 Xi power zoom. This lens is one of the best designs ever offered to Minolta and it almost certainly came from Hoya/Tokina, who sold several of their top designs on an exclusive basis to Minolta in the 1990s (including the 100-400mm APO).

There is or was a Tokina 35-200mm as well, but I've never tried it. And the immediate successor to the 70-210mm f/4, the f/3.5-4.5 version, is something I want to try.

David

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby bakubo » Sun May 13, 2012 12:36 am

David Kilpatrick wrote:I'm using a secondhand Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 AF, mostly because nothing significantly better has been made since 1985. It has a close 1.1m focus, internal focusing, constant aperture


I don't have my beercan with me right now, but my recollection is that the front focus ring extends the barrel when you turn it and also turns the front of the lens. I might just have a faulty memory here, but I do seem to remember this. Were there different models and some had internal focusing?

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Sun May 13, 2012 12:50 am

Internal zooming I meant, not internal focusing. The 135mm f/2.8 has internal focusing. The extension of the front is very limited when focusing, just a few mm, but the front does rotate. This has never worried me as I have never used a polariser on a tele zoom.

David

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby bakubo » Sun May 13, 2012 1:27 am

David Kilpatrick wrote:Internal zooming I meant, not internal focusing. The 135mm f/2.8 has internal focusing. The extension of the front is very limited when focusing, just a few mm, but the front does rotate. This has never worried me as I have never used a polariser on a tele zoom.


Okay, this matches my recollection exactly. Yes, it was never a problem for me either. With all the new software tools that can automatically fix things like distortion, CA, fringing, and vignetting I don't care too much about these things anymore. I think only Dx0 tries to do anything about sharpness, but in my digital days I have not had any lenses that were terrible in that department, although some are not so great in the corners. I am glad I held onto my beercan even though I haven't used it for quite awhile.

ACIPhotos: Recently someone on this forum was selling a beercan. I don't know if it is still available though. Also, you can probably find one on ebay, keh.com, or elsewhere. What country are you in?

User avatar
UrsaMajor
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 682
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:36 am
Location: Southern California

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby UrsaMajor » Sun May 13, 2012 10:56 pm

David Kilpatrick wrote:. . . And the immediate successor to the 70-210mm f/4, the f/3.5-4.5 version, is something I want to try.
I have been quite satisfied with that lens. If I have no concerns about the size and weight of the lens(es) I have with me, I will choose the f:4.0 version because I subjectively prefer the images it draws, but on an objective basis I consider the f:3.5-4.5 version to be as good a lens as the f:4.0 version - for my purposes.

If I will be carrying my camera gear for any significant time, or travelling on a commercial aircraft, I will use the f:3.5-4.5 version, as its smaller size and weight when compared to the f:4.0 "beercan" can be a real blessing.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Mon May 14, 2012 1:21 am

Kurt Munger has given the 70-210 f3.5-4.5 a going over here http://kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_70_210mm_f_3_5_4_5_reviewid191.html he thinks the 70-210 f4 is a better lens. I would be more concerned these days about them both being five pin contact lenses and therefore not (D) lenses.
It's well past time for an upgraded version Sony….you hoo Sony where are you…Earth to Sony…come in Sony…. :roll:
Greg

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5696
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby bakubo » Mon May 14, 2012 1:57 am

Greg, thanks for the link. I also found his review of the beercan here:

http://kurtmunger.com/minolta__af_70_210mm_f_4__reviewid25.html

ACIPhotos
Heirophant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Plymouth Devon
Contact:

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby ACIPhotos » Mon May 14, 2012 7:52 pm

ACIPhotos: Recently someone on this forum was selling a beercan. I don't know if it is still available though. Also, you can probably find one on ebay, keh.com, or elsewhere. What country are you in?[/quote]

Good old Blighty. I bought a beercan on Ebay but had to send it back as it was full of bits inside the lens (fungus/mould I guess) and I would have been forever photoshopping the bits out! So I didn't get to try it.

David - thanks for the advice. Looks like the beercan is the choice of the moment then. I'll keep looking for one, cos I'm sick of turning up somewhere and saying - oh if only I had ..... :roll:
Anna

Argonaut
Oligarch
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby Argonaut » Thu May 17, 2012 10:26 pm

Is not the sony 55-200 kit lens a pretty good buy? I have it and a beercan and have been pleased with the Sony's IQ. Plus it's much smaller and lighter. Play your cards right and you can get it with a new body for an additional $100, or at least I did last year.
Sony a77ii, RX-100 I; RX10 iii; Rokinon 8mm f/3.5; Tamron 17-50; Sony 70-400G; Lightroom 6.2; Photoshop CS5; PicturesToExe 8.0.

User avatar
harveyzone
Oligarch
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Worcestershire, England

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby harveyzone » Thu May 17, 2012 11:31 pm

Argonaut wrote:Is not the sony 55-200 kit lens a pretty good buy? I have it and a beercan and have been pleased with the Sony's IQ. Plus it's much smaller and lighter. Play your cards right and you can get it with a new body for an additional $100, or at least I did last year.


The 55-200 is a DT lens and therefore not wholly suitable for an A850.
--
Tom

Old Hydro
Initiate
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:09 am

Re: 200mm lens

Unread postby Old Hydro » Fri May 18, 2012 1:09 am

The 55-200 is a DT lens and therefore not wholly suitable for an A850.[/quote]


No one has mentioned it yet, but unless you can get a Minolta 70-210 for a $200 -- I'd be considering the Sony 70-300. It great on the A850.


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron