Long Fast Tele experience sought

[BradleyGibson]

Hi, everyone,

I'm looking for opinions on long fast tele glass for the AFDIII. I've identified the following:

300mm:
Mamiya 300/2.8 vs Zeiss 300/2.8 TPP

~500mm+:
Mamiya 500/4.5 vs Zeiss 300/2.8 + 1.7x TPP vs Mamiya 300/2.8 + 2.x

Beyond the obvious differences (size, weight, portability, price, etc.) which I am aware of, I'm looking for input from folks who have used more than one of these options. How do they compare in terms of image quality? Are there any usability issues that you have found with one versus another?

This is pretty rare territory, so its hard to get good feedback on how these options compare.

Thanks,
Brad

 

[BradleyGibson]

No one with experience with the fast teles out there?

Assuming not many have used the TPP, I'd still be interested in experiences with the Mamiya 300/2.8 and the 500/4.5 relative to any other teles you may have used.

Or even a sample raw file would be helpful.

Thanks in advance,
-Brad

 

[Don Libby]

Brad

I brought a Mamiya 300 2.8 shortly after switching to MF. The following comments are based solely on my personal experience using the lens with a Mamiya AFD II.

The first thing I remember thinking about the lens was the size, it’s freaking huge, not only the lens and overall length but weight as well. I used to shoot with a Canon 500 and I would compare the two in size with the Mamiya probably weighing more.

At least for me it was always difficult in getting an accurate focus – remember this was on an AFD II. Using this lens with an AFD means that everything is totally manual.

I had the chance to compare the 2.8 alongside the “slower” 4.5 auto focus and found little difference in image quality; as a matter of fact I sold the 2.8 and brought the 4.5 shortly after that trip.

I equate the 300 4.5 size wise to a Canon 70-200. Price wise I feel the 4.5 is a better quality (for me) as I can get the same image quality for 80% less the hassle; I can handhold the 4.5 for very long periods of time where the 2.8 really needs a tripod (based on weight and balance).

This might not be what you're looking for however I hope this helps you out

don

 

[BradleyGibson]

Brad

This might not be what you're looking for however I hope this helps you out

don

It does, Don, very much. Understanding how it has actually worked for real photographers is invaluable.

Thank you,
-Brad

 

[carstenw]

The only person I have ever heard of with a TPP is Khun_K on LL, who has a gallery of images of his (shockingly extensive) camera/lens collection on Pbase, with a sample photo of the TPP below. You might drop him a note.

http://www.pbase.com/khun_k/image/100925714

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The 300mm 4.5 is outstanding, did many runway shows with it.

 

[ondebanks]

I know this isn't really answering your question but maybe it's a valid data point nonetheless...if the M645 300mm f2.8 APO is anything like my M645 200mm f2.8 APO, it's top-notch glass. I use mine on non-AF M645 film bodies, and an EOS DSLR with a Zoerk adapter. Sometimes I use it on these bodies with a M645 2x-N TC, giving 400mm f5.6.

I'm particularly well placed to comment on its optics because I also use it with the 2x TC and astronomical eyepieces, as a pretty darn unique flat-field telescope! It is as sharp per mm of aperture, and as well-corrected in spherical abberation, as my Skywatcher 80ED APO with FPL-53 glass - both are much better than the Rayleigh quarter-wavelength criterion. The 80ED of course is only a 2-element objective, optimized [like nearly all telescopes] for axial image sharpess only; the Mamiya lens on the other hand is well corrected over the entire visual field, and beyond to the 645 format. What's even more remarkable is that the Mamiya lens is a zippy f2.8, versus the stately f7.5 of the 80ED telescope. It is incredibly hard to correct such a fast assembly of lenses to the same standards as a slow, visual telescope. Sure, the ED80 has almost zero chromatic abberation whereas the f2.8 lens has a trace of colour on high-contrast targets, but it's still better than slower "semi-APO" f6 telescopes out there, and it is not at all bothersome. Remember, it's f2.8 - a 70mm-aperture f2.8 doublet telescope would have so much chromatic abberation, it would be ludicrously awful!

By the way, both my visual and digital testing also imply that the 2x N TC is an excellent optical match to the 200mm. I took some Moon images recently at 400mm, wide open (f5.6), and it out-resolves the DSLR sensor i.e. the lunar detail was clearly undersampled. Outside the centre of the focal plane (that area covered by the DX sensor or the visual FOV), I suspect some lateral colour creeps in, but show me a 2x TC which doesn't do this.

 

[BradleyGibson]

You guys are fountains of knowlege, thank you.

Carsten, I'll ping Khun_K--and yes, I've never seen such a number of complete kits owned by one person before! I'll definitely be interested in his thoughts.

Ondebanks, thank you for your writeup as well. I already own the 200/2.8 APO, but am still awaiting my body and back to put it on... I look forward to using it, and the 2x TC. I have yet to find a 2x TC that I've liked (at least in the Canon lineup), but I'm hoping this one will not be as damaging to the image.

Thanks again,
-Brad

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Brad the 200mm 2.8 manual lens is very sharp finding that 2x N though is like finding a needle in the haystack. LOL

Like to have one myself

 

[BradleyGibson]

I didn't realize they were hard to find--I guess I was lucky because it looks like I just won one! Let's hope it's in as good condition as the seller says it is.

Next couple of weeks look pretty ugly for me, time-wise, but I will be happy to post some samples for folks as soon as I get a chance, if there is any interest.

-Brad