Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2018/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If you do not like to read about testing, and you got this far, best hit the
delete key. No whining allowed.
I have been trying to use my existing legacy Nikon lenses, and get maximum
IQ. The driving issue is to keep costs down.
The use of this lens is very limited. it is for travel where I cannot walk
closer or I wish to shoot pieces of architecture. Because of its special
purpose to me, I am very reluctant to spend much $$$ on it.
For these reasons, and knowing I wanted a 70-200 range lens on my Sony A7II,
I had made these initial choices..
Nikon 70-210 F4 AF lens. Mechanical Iris control. ( had this for about 5
years, very sharp ( I thought) and reasonably heavy at 760g). ($150)
Nikon 75-240 F4.5-5.6 AF Lens. Mechanical Iris control. ( this weighs
about 400g, and is perfect for carrying, if you do not like weight in your
bag). For a lot of stupid reasons, I had 3 of these.
It is a plastic mount lens, and is considered inferior, because of the
plastic, if you are a Nikon snob. Selling price is about $50 because of its
perceived inferiority.
Leica R 70-200 F4.5 lens, made by Minolta, so they say. 725g. No aperture
control at all, except on the lens. Push Pull lens, a very undesirable
feature to me. ( $165)
My total investment in these optics was about $450. ( 5 optics total).
The Nikon lenses can be mounted on a Fotodiox AF Nikon to Sony adapter, and
in that case, while there is no AF, there is Iris control from the camera
body. Pretty slick. Very desirable to me.
The Sony 70-210 F4 lens, even used, is $1000. Out of my reach. The Nikon
70-200 F4 is about $800, and would allow AF on my Sony body. Slick, but at
$800 used, too expensive. Ditto the Leica R 80-200 F4 ($1000+).
Tests were done at Wide open ( F4 or so), F8, and F16. Tests were done at
70mm, 100mm, 150mm and 200mm and 240 as applicable.
The subject was my famous wooden fence, in front of my house. Cedar, built
when the house was built in 1971. It is aged, marked by knots, lots of
detail, and offers THE BEST target I have ever shot, for this purpose.
Distance was roughly 25 feet. Tripod mounted.
If you wish to count, there were about 100 exposures made, all MF
Results were viewed on LR CCC. At 1:1. Same Fl, same F Stop for
evaluations. Corner and center.
The final results...
First results: There was some range of results from the 3 seemingly
identical F4-5.6 Nikon lenses. One was clearly the winner of these 3.
That lens was compared to the Nikon F4. The lighter and cheaper F4.5 - 5.6
was clearly sharper in almost all cases.
The Nikon F4 lens was compared to the Leica F4.5.. The Leica won at all F
stops, all FL, without exception.
Finally, the F4 Leica lens was compared to the Nikon F4.5-5.6. The results
were dependent on what FL and F stop.. Results were consistent at both the
center and the corners.
Nikon was better at the wide to mid mm ( Middle range)
Leica was better at the high and very lowest mm ( extremes of range)
The Fstop made a difference, but not consistently the same.. Sometimes the
Nikon was better, at other F stops, the Leica was better. (Same FL.)
I had noticed CA on the Leica lens in the past. The Nikons ( all of them)
do not show this aberration.
I have decided to keep the best Nikon F4.5-5.6 lens because it was about as
good as the Leica, and it offers Fstop control in a rational way, and allows
ease of use to focus wide open.
I will keep the Nikon F4 lens not because it was technically superior, but
because it offers the same FStop control, and it was the fastest.
The Leica F4.5 is being sold because it requires me to carry yet another
adapter to fit the Sony. and therefore it puts more weight against its
better performance.
I am going to sell the others.
In the short answer, I felt that ease of use is a dominant characteristic I
want to keep in my photography.
Legacy lenses are fascinating to use on the Sony bodies.
YMMV
Frank Filippone
Red735i at verizon.net