[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310669892' post='10024']
We have a wInner - Minolta 200/2.8G.
[/quote]
My 1st thought was that you tested either the Contax G 45/2 or the Contax N 50/1.4 on Sony NEX. But then you said it was white so I thought of the Sony 300/2.8SSM.
I'm very happy but also surprised that you tested a discontinued lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Is it 4.5 on FF or APS-C?
http://flickr.com/ephankim
[quote name='soLong' timestamp='1310684431' post='10029']
...well if you see a good lens for the a mount you have to catch it fast because tomorrow it will be discontinued ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
That's an odd statement
http://flickr.com/ephankim
bryan conner
Unregistered
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310669892' post='10024']
We have a wInner - Minolta 200/2.8G.
[/quote]
Drats.....I was going to guess the lens of a white iPod....<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
I’m curious to look at review.
What about the contrast of such old lens? I mean the contrast of Imatest resolution testchart.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310709205' post='10032']
FF
The 300G is not supposed to be as good. Such tests will remain a rare exception to the rule. They make more sense over at Sony because the lineup is not complete yet,
[/quote]
I was just checking the 300mm G SSM... I'm not sure if it's the official [url="http://kurtmunger.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/March2010/300ssmmtfchrt.jpg"]MTF chart[/url] but it looks outstanding... And for a ~6.000$ lens, this should not be surprising at all I guess...
Serkan
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310709205' post='10032']
FF
The 300G is not supposed to be as good. Such tests will remain a rare exception to the rule. They make more sense over at Sony because the lineup is not complete yet,
[/quote]
The Minolta 300G was not so good but the Sony 300G SSM is a new design and much better.
[url="http://artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/174-a900-28300-g-ssm-28300-apo-g-70-400-g-ssm-28200-apo-g-a-14x-apo-conv"]Comparison at Artaphot[/url]
Will you also test the F/2 series? (Minolta 28/2, 35/2, 100/2)
http://flickr.com/ephankim
07-15-2011, 09:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-15-2011, 09:44 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1310718427' post='10034']
I’m curious to look at review.
What about the contrast of such old lens? I mean the contrast of Imatest resolution testchart.
[/quote]
It is not that an old lens, it is from the generation of the Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM (and Nikon 180mm f2.8). And these lenses have great contrast.
I have an old Color Foto magazine from 2001. In it they test a.o. 200mm teles:
* Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L USM II
* Minolta AF Apo 200mm f2.8 G
* Nikkor AF 180mm f2.8 IF-ED
* Zeiss Sonnor T* 180mm f2.8
All 4 are sharp, the Canon and Minolta score 22 points out of 30, the Nikon 21 and the Zeiss 20.
Contrast, the Canon scores 30 out of 30, the Nikon 29, the Minolta 28 and the Zeiss 27.
Distortion, Minolta 10 out of 10, Canon, Nikon and Zeiss 8.
Vignetting, the Canon scores 9 out of 10, the Nikon, Minolta and Zeiss 8.
All in all, a great group of lenses who do not have to hide for the newest designs. And they are so much lighter and compact compared to the 70-200 f2.8 zooms...
