Photoclubalpha

But not at that price, just looks a lovely Lens

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EX-Minolta-Dy ... 3a6d4f3814

Cracking looking lens - what good nick it appears to be in .

She is wonderfull . I can tell you.

Is it value the money ... hum ... no ... Mosly only if you are crazy about macro and you want the best image. But the 100mm 2.8 is able to give equivalent result. Only if you need more reach, the 200mm give you double the distance from your subject (but with double vibration, shacking..., weight ...).

You need to aquire a special adaptor to attach the twin flash to work with it, because at 200mm ~F/16 forget to be able to get proper picture with only the sun light. So you have to invest another good 800$ to use the lens.

The big advantage of this lens is that it supports the 1.4X and 2X of Minolta. But be aware that mosly only the 1.4X really give you a 1.4x of magnification (so far with my test). I'm waiting to test this marvel with the Sony NEX 7:

LINK : http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/minolta200mmmacroteletest

Regards,

Frank

With that price I would buy a brand new 70-200G + 100/2.8 macro and spend the rest of the money on different gadgets.

I'll take two!

Dr. Harout wrote:With that price I would buy a brand new 70-200G + 100/2.8 macro and spend the rest of the money on different gadgets.

Or you buy a used Leica M8.2 for this price and sells all your lenses and buy only a 35mm 1.4

Frank

The lens range/shortage comes into play with that price I'd say, $2980 for a 200mm macro is heavily inflated, it's an APO G so it should be good but I'm not sure it's worth that much....I have read reviews of 200mm macro lenses, Sigma make one and Tamron had one as well, I don't know if they still do but the reviews didn't impress me and that they were all that practical in use for macro over above macro lenses between 50 and 100mm.
Sony don't offer an equivalent lens so anyone who wants one of those is stiffed with the price the owner thinks he can get away with I guess.
Greg

I sold my 200mm Apo Macro for 1500 Euros two years ago. It's a great lens, but because it uses internal focusing the actual focal length for macro is more like 135mm. So it does not give you a big distance benefit for insects over a conventional (no internal focus) 100mm like the Minolta/Sony design.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:I sold my 200mm Apo Macro for 1500 Euros two years ago. It's a great lens, but because it uses internal focusing the actual focal length for macro is more like 135mm. So it does not give you a big distance benefit for insects over a conventional (no internal focus) 100mm like the Minolta/Sony design.

David

Stay tune , David you push me to do a little scientific test to support your point... please correct me if I'm wrong. (engineer rules)

So , here is the three Macro lenses from Minolta full extend to get the 1:1 Macro magnification : (sorry pbase.com looks sick tonight , so I had to upload the picture directly) I decided to use the NEX 5 with live view focus to be easier to get the lens close enough:

50mm 2.8 1:1 magnification focus lock: 100mm 2.8 1:1 magnification focus lock: 200mm 4.0 1:1 magnification focus lock:

The result, looks kind of linear at 1:1 for the distance from the subject :

But, I haven't try at other magnification. Do I have done the thing correctly David ?

Pbase is still sick ... but the preview is starting to show.

I have done the same experience at 1:2, 1:3 , for 1:4 my sofa is not enough large and at 1:4 people can start using less macro lenses ...

LINK: http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/macro_distance_challenge

1:2 : 1:3 :

I've been drinking Frank, could you turn down the Sofa?
P.S. Thats a lovely set of Macro's you've got there...

I can't comment on the tests Frank, but I would love to come spend a few hours investigating your lens collection .

The 200mm measured on my screen at 1:1 is 19cm of screen distance focal plane to subject at 1:1 while the 100mm is 15cm focal plane to screen - the difference is less as you go through 1:4, 1:10 etc and at infinity the 100mm is a true 100mm and the 200mm is a true 200mm. But, as I said, it reduces to be something much shorter in real terms at macro range (1:2 to 1:1).

From your photos I measure the true focal length of the 200mm, focused on 1:1, to be about 142-145mm but it might be shorter, as the length of the optical unit (from rear and front node) has to be subtracted from the focal plane to subject distance.

I'm not criticising it for this too harshly as every long macro lens, apart from the 200mm Medical Nikkor, works exactly the same way.

If they did not, you would need a 400mm+ lens extension on your camera... a 200mm simple Tessar type lens focused on 1:1 requires 400mm between its rear node and the focal plane, and 400mm between its front node and the subject. A 200mm Tessar type lens is about 2cm between nodes, at a guess.

David