[Leica] Testing 70-200 range lenses on the A7II

[Frank Filippone]

Yes , more testing of legacy lenses against the current whiz bang
wunderkinds
..  I am trying to get a great optically, light weight kit of
lenses for my A7ii, without spending a fortune.

 

The lenses are 

 

Leica 70-210 F4 Vario Elmar    Introduced in 1984
. !

Nikon AF-D 75-240 F4.5-5.6  Introduced in 1999.  Only 1 year of production.

Nikon AF 70-210 F4    1986-1987 production

Nikon AF-G 70-200 F4  Current lens

Komura 85-205 F3.8  Not worth looking up
.. Pre AIS.

 

( Sony lenses, 70-210 F4, are $1K used.  The most expensive lens in the test
set was $600.  If I were to spend $1k on a lens in this range, it would be
the Leica 80-200 F4.  Supposed to be great!)

 

Tests were done by photographing my notorious 45 year old natural grey cedar
fence in the front yard, about 25 feet distance, in bright sun.

Test settings were
 70mm ( or shortest), 135mm, 200mm and  Longest focal
length, if over 200mm.

Test shots were taken at Wide open ( F4 or about F4), F8, and F16.  All
combinations of focal length and f stop.

Focusing was done by the modern equivalent of ground glass, at selected FL
and aperture.  Some lenses had a noticeable amount of focus shift from
change of aperture.  With an EVF, this is a pretty trivial concern.

The same adapter was used on all, the Fotodiox Pro Smart AF adapter ( the
one purported to blow up your A7  camera, which has never happened except
once 
. To someone else.    It should be noted that ALL the Nikon lenses had
full camera operable apertures through this adapter.  However, AF does not
work on any AF lens with Nikon body AF screw, and the G lens did not work in
AF with this adapter.)    The adapter is going off on Monday to be replaced
by a new Fotodiox AF adapter that has a better track record for not blowing
up cameras.

Lenses were checked for IQ in the center of the frame
. 

No IBIS, the camera was tripod mounted.

 

Let’s get the worst one out of the way
 The Komura was just not in the same
class as the others.  Even for the $9.00 I paid for it, it was terrible.

 

Now the surprise winner
. The Leica 70-210 just was great
. Better than
anything else by a pretty good margin.  

#2 was the Nikon 75-240, considered to be a lowly consumer lens ( lower
quality than the Pro lenses..????).. and the lightest lens by ½
. 

#3 was the Nikon AF-G Wunderkind be all and end all
. It did not hold up at
any aperture of focal length to the Leica
. At the longer FL, beat out the
75-240 by a bit
.  But its cost is greater by factor of 5, so it loses out
on at least price / performance ratio
..

The Nikon AF 80-200 F4, while considered a cult lens of superior quality,
just did not cut it.. the faster lens performed quite a bit worse than its
newer, lighter, and cheaper sibling
.

 

Ergonomically, all the Nikon lenses worked great with the adapter, for iris
control.  The Leica requires full manual operation
.

I do not need AF.  I am lazy and like to have it, but do not need it.

The non-G Nikon lenses require manual focusing
no big deal for accuracy, BUT
the focus ring in on the outermost part of the lens and is hard to grab to
focus.    The G lens has a nice big wide focus ring.

The best Nikon lens weighed in at 410g

The Leica  weighs 720g

The Nikon G lens weighs 850g

Plus the appropriate adpter.

 

One last comment.. the Leica lens showed a bit of a color shift towards the
blue.  Certainly correctable, if it bothers.

 

So there it is
. The Leica lens was the best optically ( but you knew
that)
..


Which will I bring to my next big trip?????? It gets down to more automatic
features or better IQ.  

 

 

 

Frank Filippone

 

Red735i at verizon.net