FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Is this normal performance for the 200mm f/2.8 hs?

Page  <12
Author
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 2170
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 June 2017 at 22:10
Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:


I remember reading that one of the Minolta tele primes was fitted with a clear filter because the glass of the front element was somewhat "soft". I don't think it was the 200mm, but someone may remember.


the 200mm (at least the HS version I owned) came with the clear minolta filter.
my flickr
A7RII, A7 (full-spectrum), NEX-5n
 



Back to Top
Pirate View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 May 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Liverpool
Status: Offline
Posts: 5691
Post Options Post Options   Quote Pirate Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 June 2017 at 23:04
Ahoy!

I have to question your train of thought as you're using an E-Mount camera with an APS-C sensor which is essentially a pocket sized product and you want to use a full frame full sized lens on it which also requires an adapter in order to 'mate' the lens to the body

Whilst you must have your reasons (likely none that'll make any sense to me anyway), how did you come to choosing the type, model and mount as IMO, you would've been better served with an A-Mount DSLR or SLT, and as all full frame Sony bodies are dual format, you can use both full frame and APS-C format designed for the cropped sensor which means you can use ALL legacy Konica-Minolta and Minolta AF lenses to their optimum image size unlike the miniscule central portion that an APS-C sensor captures, so FWIW, if I owned your camera model, I would buy a Sony DT, Sigma DC, Tamron Di-II and Tokina DX APS-C format lenses as you'll get the full focal range as opposed to what full frame lenses produce as you have to apply the 1.5x 35mm crop factor, so your 200/2.8 is actually a 300mm F/2.8 equivalent on your camera and all other APS-C format models.

Tele-zoom and tele-prime lenses are generally all full frame anyway, but there are often alternative make/models in the correct format for your sensor in wide-angle, ultra wide-angle, some prime, fisheye and short zoom in APS-C format and you'll get the range of the lens type unlike full frame lenses on APS-C bodies. One 'prime' (pun intended) for example is the Old Duchess Minolta AF 70-210mm F/4 Macro (Beercan) which most will say is brilliant, but compared to what exactly?

My findings and opinions are based on both ownership and use, so in this case, I would recommend the Sigma AF 50-200mm F/4-5.6 DC OS HSM and take a look at it on Dyxum, especially the rating, and even for so few written, I completely agree with the rating. I was immensely impressed with it, and you could be mistaken of thinking a G grade lens had been used it's that good. Furthermore, there are others that produce similar or better results which are standard grade prime, macro and zoom formats, but for me, I buy based on area(s) of interest and not to amass a collection based on 'suggested' lens make/model/type as there's nearly always a superior alternative for similar and/or lower price(s), so be selective.

There are others by Sigma and Tamron in the 50/55-200mm zoom range which are APS-C format and also the Sony AF 50mm F/1.8 DT SAM prime.

What are your subjects of interest and what level of shooter are you? I ask simply because most toggers use specific words and phrases that a newbie may not be familiar with, so it's to use the most appropriate wording rather than to assume and get it totally wrong. Whether this all makes sense (or not) only you can decide, and there are plenty of lenses I've never used/owned and therefore I won't comment on those, but I'm quite sure you'll get qualified advice so you can make more informed decisions about which make/model/type of lens that may be best suited for your subject(s) of interest and shooting styles.

Happy hunting
Back to Top
Eclipse View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 February 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1661
Post Options Post Options   Quote Eclipse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 June 2017 at 23:07
Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

..... draws very nicely in a very traditional "G" style without excessive sharpness or contrast found in some modern designed lenses.

....


I'm finding the 70-400G2 (which is new to me)is almost a bit too contrasty - so I know what you mean. Formidably sharp in good light, but a bit, well, unsympathetic. The old 200/2.8HS has a more attractive look (to me).

I have a musical instrument that reminds me of the more modern lenses. It's very accurate, incredibly responsive,and very very strong in sound, but it has take me a long time to get to the point where it isn't stronger than I am. It's very headstrong.
I have also an older design of the same instrument that has a beautiful sound; though it is not as accurate, strong or responsive, it is much more forgiving.
I imagine I will get more out of the 70-400G2 when I have used it more and got to know it better.
Back to Top
Cowmatian View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 12 June 2017
Country: United States
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cowmatian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 June 2017 at 23:18
I have had a digital camera with me casually since I was about 10. I'm in my 20s now and I got my first non-point and shoot camera a few years ago, the Nikon d5200. I still have it and love it, but the large flange distance made infinity focus on many vintage lenses impossible. The short flange distance combined with the small form factor body and the impressive zony 55 1.8 made me want to try out the e mount system. I got the la ea4 with a Minolta 35-105 cheaply from a friend who was saving for new gear. After deciding that I needed to get a telephoto faster than the beercan, the minolta looked to be a compact and high performance choice with great build. Also, I plan to go ff in the near future. Im a hobbyist only who loves event shooting and pet photography.
Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3685
Post Options Post Options   Quote artuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2017 at 00:33
Originally posted by Eclipse Eclipse wrote:

Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

..... draws very nicely in a very traditional "G" style without excessive sharpness or contrast found in some modern designed lenses.

....


I'm finding the 70-400G2 (which is new to me)is almost a bit too contrasty - so I know what you mean. Formidably sharp in good light, but a bit, well, unsympathetic. The old 200/2.8HS has a more attractive look (to me).

I have a musical instrument that reminds me of the more modern lenses. It's very accurate, incredibly responsive,and very very strong in sound, but it has take me a long time to get to the point where it isn't stronger than I am. It's very headstrong.
I have also an older design of the same instrument that has a beautiful sound; though it is not as accurate, strong or responsive, it is much more forgiving.
I imagine I will get more out of the 70-400G2 when I have used it more and got to know it better.


Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. Sharpness is largely resolution with contrast applied. Many new designs of lens favour sharpness since digital capture and pixel peeping dictate that that's what users want. Unfortunately it's easy to add contrast post capture (sharpening, high pass sharpening, tone mapping, clarity etc) but it's more difficult to remove it. I find some modern lenses almost comically sharp looking but often quite poor at how they draw and render. Some of the G lenses tend to have good resolution but are not excessively sharp (28-70 G, 200G, FE 70-200 G) and ten to draw in a more subtle way that some other designs.
Art
Back to Top
Cowmatian View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 12 June 2017
Country: United States
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cowmatian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2017 at 04:33
You're​ right. The images are detailed but not super sharp. I like this rendering but wish the contrast was a little higher but thats just a click in lr. That is when the af hits. All of my native lenses are used on continuous with great results, but the la ea4 is much better on single. Thank you everyone and I look forward to learning more here.
 



Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2351
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2017 at 08:01
Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

I find some modern lenses almost comically sharp looking but often quite poor at how they draw and render. Some of the G lenses tend to have good resolution but are not excessively sharp (28-70 G, 200G, FE 70-200 G) and ten to draw in a more subtle way that some other designs.

I think it's not only modern lenses that do that. I have a copy of the original Minolta 24-50mm f4 lens which, through the OVF of my 600si film camera, produces the most horrid bokeh any time it is focussed near MFD. I get spotty rings - almost like a mirror lens - but with a bright dot at the centre.

Yet, curiously, if I take pictures with my A58 (digital APS-C) I don't get that, and though the bokeh is certainly a little busy at times, I don't see anything objectionable like I do through the 600si. How wierd is that?

Are the 600si OVF optics affecting the bokeh too?
A900, A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3685
Post Options Post Options   Quote artuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2017 at 10:21
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

I find some modern lenses almost comically sharp looking but often quite poor at how they draw and render. Some of the G lenses tend to have good resolution but are not excessively sharp (28-70 G, 200G, FE 70-200 G) and ten to draw in a more subtle way that some other designs.

I think it's not only modern lenses that do that. I have a copy of the original Minolta 24-50mm f4 lens which, through the OVF of my 600si film camera, produces the most horrid bokeh any time it is focussed near MFD. I get spotty rings - almost like a mirror lens - but with a bright dot at the centre.

Yet, curiously, if I take pictures with my A58 (digital APS-C) I don't get that, and though the bokeh is certainly a little busy at times, I don't see anything objectionable like I do through the 600si. How wierd is that?

Are the 600si OVF optics affecting the bokeh too?


The difference in bokeh could be because on APS-C the format is smaller, therefore some of the light passing through the lens doesn't form the image you can see.

I never saw that with my copy which I used to love on film. For its day the design was very adventurous (aspherics etc) and it had excellent resolution for a wide zoom, approaching near prime quality stopped down. It had nice color but I agree was relatively contrasty, whereas the G lenses tended to draw / render in a different way (they also tended to have different color particularly in the greens).

The 200mm G is a great lens but I wouldn't say it looked "sharp" - it had plenty of resolution but wasn't optimised for excessive contrast to exaggerate it's resolution (unlike some modern lenses or other older lenses such as Zeiss).. So many older faster aperture lenses had some veiling caused by spherical aberration that softened their image at open aperture, but also flattered bokeh. Most modern designs are free of this type of aberration to conform to consumer expectations and pixel peeping. I vacillate between preferring the 2 styles of rendering depending on what I am photographing.
Art
Back to Top
Alfasud1972 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 01 September 2016
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Post Options Post Options   Quote Alfasud1972 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 June 2017 at 23:27
First try to Fine-tune the AF, or focus manually to test the sharpness. All the pictures are shot with somewhat high ISO settings, please try ISO 100/200 and then check if the results are better.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2351
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 June 2017 at 16:11
Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

So many older faster aperture lenses had some veiling caused by spherical aberration that softened their image at open aperture, but also flattered bokeh. Most modern designs are free of this type of aberration to conform to consumer expectations and pixel peeping. I vacillate between preferring the 2 styles of rendering depending on what I am photographing.

Yes, but it's interesting to look at cinema lenses which don't need to have stupid resolution, but do need to have a nice bokeh. And they do ...

I checked the 24-50mm lens through the OVF of several different film cameras and the view was different. Quite a different magnification, and subtle differences to the bokeh. I wonder whether the mirror is doing anything to it. Slight divergence from flatness or ripple perhaps?
A900, A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.074 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.