Recommend me a bright tele:)

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Neftun, Aug 11, 2013.

  1. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    408
    Jul 15, 2012
    Norway
    Patrick Kristiansen
    I have been playing with an om135f3,5 and om200mmf4, and they are good fun, but I feel the need for something brighter.

    I've checked the Nikkor ais 180mmf2,8, which seems good, but I hate Nikon aperture-rings:( also the om180f2,8 seems interesting, and I love the om buildquality.

    Any other suggestions? On a side note, the 135 and 200 will be up for sale:)


    Patrick K
     
  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    I've seen good results from the Canon FD 200mm f/2.8, though there's a good amount of CA with it. The Konica Hexanon 200mm f/3.5 is also a superb lens.

    If you're willin to go up in price...

    Leica R 180mm f/2.8 & f/4 aren't outrageously expensive at $400-$600--some try to charge more than that, don't bother though. the Leica R 180mm f/3.4 is a brilliant APO lens that's a little more than that.

    The Contax Zeiss 180mm f/2.8 can be had for about the same as the Nikon & Olympus lenses.

    If you want to go beyond 200mm, then the best recommendation I have would be the Canon FD 300mm f/4L--there's a non-L version, too, that's cheaper, but the f/4L is the one to get--generally around $500.
     
  3. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    That Nikon 180mm ED 2.8 is stellar, except for CA. What about the aperture ring don't you like? As for 300mm, M Aubrey is correct about the L, but $400 is a reasonable price. Once again the Nikon 300mm f4 AF is in league with the Canon L, tho slightly more money, but it has an open aperture blade position ( not inside the optics) so you must be careful. I've had all 3 lenses, but settled upon an Olympus 300mm f4.5 as best punch for price ($150).
     
  4. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    408
    Jul 15, 2012
    Norway
    Patrick Kristiansen
    Yeah, I think I want something around 180mm.
    I didn't really mind nikon aperture-rings until I tried an om lens... Most nikons are plastic and clicks sort of soggy...atleast mine are.
    So the nikon 180f2,8 has CA, even the ed's? Hmm. I think I will check out the leicas and zeiss's.


    Patrick K
     
  5. MarylandUSA

    MarylandUSA Mu-43 Regular

    185
    Jul 3, 2013
    Poolesville, Maryland
    Paul Franklin Stregevsky
    The Tamron Adaptall 180/2.5 and Pentax SMC 200/2.5 both have great reputations for sharpness, color, and build.

    I prefer to keep my M43 system light. At 180 and 200mm, I've been looking only at lenses that weigh less than about 600g with adapter. That has limited me to lenses whose maximum aperture is between f/3.4 and f/4.5. The way I see it, I don't need a very bright lens because the focus magnifier makes focusing easy. But then, I'm not into isolating the subject, so I don't need a large aperture.
     
  6. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    408
    Jul 15, 2012
    Norway
    Patrick Kristiansen
    Weight is an issue. The om 180f2,8 is 700g, the 2,0 is what, 1,7kg? And way out of my pricerange. Anyone have any xp with the om180f2,8? Would love to see some samples:)


    Patrick K
     
  7. Harmonica

    Harmonica Mu-43 Regular

    114
    Mar 15, 2012
    Finland
    Thirdly...OM 180mm f2 is also nowdays very rare lens (not easy to find).

    As for me...the money has really been some kind limitator (being so...I have not owned or tested those old white OM lenses by myself either...250mm f2 should be even better than 180mm or 350mm). I simply have owned, used and tested these 3 180mm - 200mm lenses in last 2,5 years time (all of them weights about the same):

    Tamron SP 180mm f2.5


    Pentax FA* 200mm f2.8


    Minolta APO HS G 200mm 2.8



    And my personal winner of the that group was?





    ...and second place goes to Pentax (all of them were still either very good or even great).


    Explanation: Before moving to M4/3 I used both Minolta MA and Pentax K/KAF gears.
     
  8. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    I like the Vivitar Series 1 200mm f3 a lot - superb build quality and nice optics too. I sold my 180mm f2.8 ED Nikkor (which was a beater) after I got it, but still sold for 4x what I paid for the Vivitar. in near mint condition. The Vivitar is pretty light for this class of lens as well at 850 g, due to the slightly slower f3 max aperture, which makes almost no difference in actual use.

    I also basically stole the Vivitar Series 1 200mm from a clueless ebay seller for just under $50 including shipping who forgot to mention what mount it was. I bought it knowing that whichever mount, I could get an m4/3 adapter (it was Canon FD).

    In my experience, ALL of these fast long teles have some CA on a 4/3 sensor though.
     
  9. Harmonica

    Harmonica Mu-43 Regular

    114
    Mar 15, 2012
    Finland
    Agree.
     
  10. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    408
    Jul 15, 2012
    Norway
    Patrick Kristiansen
    What do mean by the nikkor was a beater? Being Norwegian I don't understand all slang...
    It is not hard to believe you when say they all have CA, but there is the degree of it I'm interested in, and I want as little as possible, as cheaply and lightly as possible. After some googling, I see others vouching for the nikkor over the om in this regard. Any thoughts anyone?


    Patrick K
     
  11. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    A "beater" means it was in less than good condition. I do think they all have CA, but that is easily removed with some PP.
     
  12. tradesmith45

    tradesmith45 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 13, 2012
    Oregon

    Is there an aperture ring on the Minolta? Can't see one in photos.
     
  13. tradesmith45

    tradesmith45 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 13, 2012
    Oregon
    How about the Sigma Macro 180 f2.8. I don't own it but have considered & test reports show it is sharp.
     
  14. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Yes, a "beater" is a lens that has been abused in it's lifetime and is cosmetically ugly condition. Although my lens did have perfect glass and worked fine mechanically - it had a nasty ding on the sliding lens shade and lots of scuffs on the black paint. Here are a couple of the pics I took of it when I sold it on ebay. You can see that the glass and the diaphragm blades were pristine. As I said, I felt that the Vivitar Series 1 200 was in the same overall class as this Nikkor, and I sold the Nikkor because it was heavier, and I knew I'd get more money for it. Build quality and optics, including the amount of CA, between the Vivitar and the Nikkor were both about the same.
     
  15. MarylandUSA

    MarylandUSA Mu-43 Regular

    185
    Jul 3, 2013
    Poolesville, Maryland
    Paul Franklin Stregevsky
    180/200mm and weight

    700g is remarkably low for a 180/2.8. Consider these weights of dimmer models:

    500g for 200/3.5 Tamron-F (the lightest 180 or 200 in f/3.5 or faster)
    630g for 200/4.0 Nikkor-Q non-AI
    671g for 200/4.0 Pentax FA IF (autofocus)
    675g for 200/3.5 Vivitar Auto-Telephoto close focus (1.8m), 62mm filter
    700g for 200/3.5 Teliar-N
    715g for 200/3.5 Tamron T-mount
    740g for 200/3.5 Jupiter 21A (1968)
    750g for 180/3.4 Leica R
    780g for 200/3.5 Zeiss Tele-Tessar
    785g for 200/3.5 Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QF
    790g for 200/3.5 Tamron Adapt-A-Matic
    980g for 200/4.0 Jupiter 21M (1973) (almost 1kg for f/4!)

    The only 180 and 200mm primes that routinely weigh less than 500g are the f/4s. The best of these is probably the Voigtlander SL 180/4 APO close focus. It weighs just 484g. But it can cost close to $2000 U.S.

    At just 500g, the Tamron F 200/3.5 weighs about 25% less than any other f/3.5 in its focal-length class. I wonder whether 500g is correct.

    The lightest 180 or 200mm prime that is (1) under 600g, (2) often named as one of the very best 180/200 primes ever made, and (2) priced for mortals (under $400) is the Zeiss Tele-Tessar 200/4 T* AEG (in Contax-Yashica mount), at 550g. The Rollei-branded Zeiss Auto Tele-Tessar costs even less but uses a different formula, uses wider filters (67mm vs 55), and focuses to 2.5m vs. the Zeiss's 1.5m.

     
  16. burdickjp

    burdickjp Mu-43 Veteran

    235
    Feb 25, 2013
  17. wyip

    wyip Mu-43 Regular

    77
    Nov 17, 2010
    San Francisco, CA
    No aperture ring on the lens itself, but you can get a MA/m43 adapter that has aperture control on it.
     
  18. Harmonica

    Harmonica Mu-43 Regular

    114
    Mar 15, 2012
    Finland

    Exactly...the adapter's (MA=>M4/3) apeture ring will control the lens own/original apeture system. So these adapters are luckily different here than for example Canon EF = M4/3 adapters. The Canon adapters will incl. whole apeture system... and they have nothing to do with EF-lenses original apeture system. That is not good as by then apeture system is not located in right place.
     
  19. Harmonica

    Harmonica Mu-43 Regular

    114
    Mar 15, 2012
    Finland
    What comes to these bit shorter old mf telelenses...one of my own favorit (on M4/3) is Pentax M 150mm f3.5. It's not expensive lens, has metal body but weights only 290g (and even has a build in hood).

    M 150/3.5

    To understand how small that 150mm (pure FF) lens actually is ...here it is together with my Oly 75mm and Oly 60mm macro.