Manual Telephoto vs Modern Lens?

I have a question for those experienced with MF lenses. I've recently picked up a Tokina 80-200 F4 (M42 mount). The focal length and depth of field are amazing, and I'm really fine without autofocus. The lens does show its age, particularly in strong light (which is exactly where I want to use it most often). It loses alot of contrast and just seems... hazy.

I plan on picking up a 70-200 F4L or similar in the future. For now, I'm interested in MF 135mm - 200mm lenses for under $100 (there seems to be alot for sale locally and on eBay). Primes are OK, preferably closer to 200mm. Are there any such lenses which can match the quality of a modern Canon lens? I've heard lots of good things about certain lenses such as the Takumar telephotos, but are they actually comparable to a modern lens?

There are decent manual telephoto lenses, but most of those are still relatively expensive. I'd say that for under $100 you'll be getting either bad lenses in good condition or good lenses in bad condition.

I heard that the Nikkor AI(-s) lenses still perform quite decently. Once owned a Micro-Nikkor 58mm 2.8 AI-s and liked it a lot.

That's exactly what I'm concerned about. So it's basically worthwhile to save up for a decent lens.

Yes. Camera lenses have gotten better and more complex over the years aswell, not just camera bodies.

Spend a bit more and get a modern lens that will hopefully last as long as those vintage lenses did.

RobinSchouten wrote in post #17912818
There are decent manual telephoto lenses, but most of those are still relatively expensive. I'd say that for under $100 you'll be getting either bad lenses in good condition or good lenses in bad condition.

This. Lens and coating technology has come a long way, especially noticeable in the telephoto focal lengths. Those vintage lenses that are best able to cope with modern sensors are appropriately priced.

However, there are a lot of old MF lenses around 50mm focal length that are excellent quality and affordable.

While you are saving up for the 70-200mm f/4 why not pick up a Canon EF 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 USM ?

They sell for about $50-150 on ebay and are very sharp. http://www.ebay.com …m+3.5-4.5+usm&_sacat=3323

Check out some of the sample photos here: https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=321​565&page=3

Tyguy wrote in post #17912472
I have a question for those experienced with MF lenses. I've recently picked up a Tokina 80-200 F4 (M42 mount). The focal length and depth of field are amazing, and I'm really fine without autofocus. The lens does show its age, particularly in strong light (which is exactly where I want to use it most often). It loses alot of contrast and just seems... hazy.

I plan on picking up a 70-200 F4L or similar in the future. For now, I'm interested in MF 135mm - 200mm lenses for under $100 (there seems to be alot for sale locally and on eBay). Primes are OK, preferably closer to 200mm. Are there any such lenses which can match the quality of a modern Canon lens? I've heard lots of good things about certain lenses such as the Takumar telephotos, but are they actually comparable to a modern lens?

Heya,

200 F4 super takumars are very sharp, great performers, if you're ok with MF they're fantastic.

The reason why they all have trouble in bright light is simply due to the lack of multi-coating tech of today that really cuts out flare. It's just flare. A really long lens hood helps a ton. Not the standard ones, a really long one.

They match closely some of the older Canon 70-200's just fine in sharpness (super tak's that is).

Very best,

I had a old manual Tokina 90-230mm 4.5 (in minolta md mount) and I loved it. Only sold it because I was low on cash,needed books for college.

Pictures were on my Sony A7, jpeg neutral picture profile.

Lens coatiings, zooms, complex high end lenses like the Otus, AF and IS are all ways that a modern lens is better.

Having said that, I have three AF lenses and 5 old MF lenses, none newer than mid 70's. The silver-nose zuiko 50f1.4 is indistinguishable from the EF40f2.8 at the same apertures in my resolution tests, it is still pretty good at f2.0 and dreamy at f1.4, but at least I have those options compared to the pancake. There is a slight color cast difference that I can solve post if I want. The FD135f2.5 is similar at f2.5 to the EF100f2.0 wide open. And so forth. Primes from 24mm to 200mm are pretty simple designs, and haven't changed much optically other than low dispersion material and coatings. So I use the MF lenses quite a bit (and MF with the AF lenses when I need to).

Oh, I have the EF-S focusing screen for my 60D, if your camera supports something like this, get it. Even my EF300f4.0L benefits, even though it's a hair dark, even at f4, ISO 4000, 1/50th sec the other night.

msowsun wrote in post #17913080
While you are saving up for the 70-200mm f/4 why not pick up a Canon EF 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 USM ?

That's quite an affordable lens. Worth considering, although to get it shipped to Canada will bring it just above $100 Could just paint it white and forget the 70-200. Tempting...

MalVeauX wrote in post #17913092
200 F4 super takumars are very sharp, great performers, if you're ok with MF they're fantastic.

I was seriously considering a 135 or 200 Super Tak. That bit about the hood was interesting, maybe I should start with a big hood on my Tokina and see if I'm happy with it.

maverick75 wrote in post #17913106
I had a old manual Tokina 90-230mm 4.5 (in minolta md mount) and I loved it. Only sold it because I was low on cash,needed books for college.

Another interesting option, although it appears similar to my current Tokina. The big issue is the haze in strong light...

mfturner wrote in post #17913118
Having said that, I have three AF lenses and 5 old MF lenses, none newer than mid 70's. The silver-nose zuiko 50f1.4 is indistinguishable from the EF40f2.8 at the same apertures in my resolution tests, it is still pretty good at f2.0 and dreamy at f1.4, but at least I have those options compared to the pancake. There is a slight color cast difference that I can solve post if I want. The FD135f2.5 is similar at f2.5 to the EF100f2.0 wide open. And so forth. Primes from 24mm to 200mm are pretty simple designs, and haven't changed much optically other than low dispersion material and coatings. So I use the MF lenses quite a bit (and MF with the AF lenses when I need to).

Oh, I have the EF-S focusing screen for my 60D, if your camera supports something like this, get it. Even my EF300f4.0L benefits, even though it's a hair dark, even at f4, ISO 4000, 1/50th sec the other night.

That's an interesting comparison. An FD 135 F2.5 would be an awesome lens if it really performed as well as the 100 F2.0 wide open. And yes, I have the precision matte screens on my 40D and 5D, impossible to do any MF without them!

msowsun wrote in post #17913080
While you are saving up for the 70-200mm f/4 why not pick up a Canon EF 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 USM ?

i have one of these ^^ and it is very capable ... for what you pay. Nice color rendition and pretty sharp. Picked mine up for 50 bucks probably 6 years ago and carry it around while out hiking since it is a fraction of the weight of my 70-200 2.8 IS. I found it locally on craigslist.

I will say that my copy's sweet spot is @135. It is good wide and up to about 180 then gets a little weird in strong light. 120-150 is really nice.

edit: just dug up an old photo with this lens, sure wish I would have fixed the boys' bed head before going hiking. Converted RAW, but pretty much default settings.

edit 2: the RAW file was sitting right beside the JPG so I made a 100% crop, default Adobe Camera Raw conversion, meaning very little sharpening. My 6D tends to front focus, and I don't think i've ever done MFA on this lens, so the orange jacket is sharper than the blue/green shirt in the background.

Hmm sure is an affordable lens. Looks alot like the 28-135mm, sounds like it performs nicely as well.

Tyguy wrote in post #17913716
That's quite an affordable lens. Worth considering, although to get it shipped to Canada will bring it just above $100 Could just paint it white and forget the 70-200. Tempting...

I was seriously considering a 135 or 200 Super Tak. That bit about the hood was interesting, maybe I should start with a big hood on my Tokina and see if I'm happy with it.

Another interesting option, although it appears similar to my current Tokina. The big issue is the haze in strong light...

That's an interesting comparison. An FD 135 F2.5 would be an awesome lens if it really performed as well as the 100 F2.0 wide open. And yes, I have the precision matte screens on my 40D and 5D, impossible to do any MF without them!

The precision focus screen is not really at all efective with the longer manual focus screens. Actually for the f/3.5 and smaller maximum apertures the standard screen will be just as accurate, and actually look brighter.

It's really only with the wider than f/2.8 lenses that the prevision matt screen is an advantage. I come from an MF film background and used to hate having to use slow telephoto lenses with f/2.8 focus screens with split image/fresnel ring focus aids. Even my 135mm lens was an f/3.5. By the time I got to 400mm I was working at a maximum of f/9.

Alan

Good point. I switched screens when I was learning on my 50 1.4 and 100 2.8. Don't have any experience with f/4 on a standard screen.