Minolta AF 200mm f/2.8 review at Photozone. It’s a “marvel lens!!!”
Image courtesy: Photozone (Thanks!)
And here we have the next nice review from Photozone (Click here). They tested the Minolta AF 200mm f/2.8: “The Minolta AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS is a marvel of a lens indeed. It is sharp as a tack in the relevant aperture range and even superior to the current Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM.” Oh makes me wonder why such good lenses are no more in production!!! Sony wake up! Release a new 200mm lens that has at least the same terrific performance! The only place where you can find the lens in of course on eBay (Click here to see the Minolta lens auction).
Zacao
2 years ago |This is a lens which have a fairly legendary reputation among Chinese photographing enthusiasts.
And in 2nd hand market, a good-condition one would priced at about 1200 bucks, and one which have some scratching on exterior but good optics, still $1000.
That’s really expensive for a 20yrs old lens. For example, the super exotic 135stf, Minolta one, priced ~800 dollars, that should give you an idea.
And, back in times, Minolta was very popular brandname in China, like today’s Nikon.
zstan
2 years ago |200mm F2!!!!!!
JakobR
2 years ago |One of the reasons to stay put with Alpha is my Min 200F2.8 HS and Min 300F2.8
just plain magic.
It is actually still pretty good with the matched TC1.4
Anonymous
2 years ago |“It is sharp as a tack in the relevant aperture range and even superior to the current Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM.”
What? Is this a joke? Of course it will be better, it’s a prime. That’s like someone reviewing a truck and comparing it to a motorcycle and saying “It is very spacious and surprisingly, in terms of carrying more, it is superior to a motorcycle”.
Carl
2 years ago |The 70-200 was released in 2003, whereas the 200/2.8 was released in 1986. It’s not unusual for a zoom to beat a prime that’s 17 years its senior.
Raul S.
2 years ago |No, you got it wrong..Anonymous was saying complaining because the post states that this prime (the Minolta prime) is superior in sharpness at same aperture and focal lenght compared to the Sony G zoom, and obviously for a zoom, it’s hard to keep sharpness along all focal lenght compared to a prime…And I agree with him/her. It has nothing to do with release date as you said, because there are several old lenses that still can outperform better than today ones.
You can achieve more performance in a given lenght and aperture with a prime than with a zoom.
SRL
2 years ago |Carl,
I believe you to be correct.
I have a box full of first generation Minolta primes that in their day considered to be top quality 35mm lenses that by today’s standards are not as sharp at any focal length as a good quality zoom made today.
Lens manufactures didn’t have computers to help them design like today and coatings have greatly improved also from the days when Minolta shipped its first AF lenses. And, my CZ 24-70/f2.8 zoom that was released just a few years back is sharper than many primes and the equal of my Minolta 85/f1.4
Clyde
2 years ago |Equal? Since when did the Zeiss 24-70 start zooming to 85mm?
Jennzhen
2 years ago |You can twist a bit more to the right to get to 85mm … you didn’t know this ???
Edwin Herdman
2 years ago |Dear Sir and/or Madam Pink Kirby-Like Thing,
The “no computer aided design” is a myth.
The very first 35mm SLR zoom lens *ever,* designed back in 1959 (by fellow American Dr. Back of the Kilfitt company’s 36–82 mm/2.8 Zoomar, designed on Long Island for Voigtlander), used both rare earth elements and a computer aided optical design.* So, the next time somebody asks you at a party about SLR lens design, YOU KNOW.
About the lens this article is about: I have only ever laid hands on an old 35-70mm Konica Minolta zoom lens – the kind that shipped with the Maxxum 7000 SLR. Haven’t had a chance to use it. I like the design of their telephoto lenses though – white and bling, it’s like the best of Canon and Nikon shoehorned together! OK, all the writing is a bit messy and likely to wear off with use, but if you need to know what lens you’re putting on your camera when you rob the camera store, the Konica-Minolta lens will make sure you know.
Speaking of that, another piece of trivia is due – Konica-Minolta was the first to release a successful, widely-adopted autofocus camera system. They were a few years ahead of Canon’s EOS system.
*Unceremoniously copied wholesale from this excellent page: http://www.cameraquest.com/ekzoom.htm
Klaus Schroiff
2 years ago |Just to mention:
The Canon 70-200/2.8 USM L IS II is at least as good as the 200/2.8L, probably a tad better depending how you look at it. It is likely that the same is true for the corresponding Nikkors. It is simply “a problem” that the consumer primes are often oldies by now.
FK
2 years ago |This is one of the sharpest lenses for the alpha system, compared to the 70-200 it is much sharper and much more compact, so it could still have a market.
However from what I know Minolta did use sorts of glass that aren’t available anymore do to environmental and other restrictions (like the radioactive glass in some old rokkors).
If Sony should consider remaking this lens (and they should in my oppinion) they should make it a faster lens (200/2 would be fine), so that people have a reason to chose this lens over the 70-200.
Carl
2 years ago |A 200/2 won’t be compact, though.
Raul S.
2 years ago |you can’t compare a zoom sharpness with a prime…even if both are expensive..I could say the Sony G 70-200 outperforms the minolta 200 because it’s a zoom and gives you more options to work with..but not, I can’t say that because a prime it’s a prime and a zoom it’s a zoom.
Sky_walker
2 years ago |Can’t compare? Why not, both have 200mm setting, both have f/2.8 aperture, both can be plugged into same camera so I’m free to compare them at will. The fact that Prime beats Zoom in almost every case through a history isn’t anything unusual so the result of this comparison is quite obvious, but never the less there is no reason not to compare different lenses especially when both are used for similar purpose and both can be interesting alternatives for same people.
Raul S.
2 years ago |ok, not that you can’t, it’s not completely fair.
FK
2 years ago |I think you actually can compare these lenses here is why:
1.) The 200/2.8 is from 1986 the 70-200/2.8 from 2003 I think we can expect that since then glasses and manufacturing processes as well as lens designs were improved. (And optimized for Digital use)
2.) The 70-200/2.8 is currently 1.5 times as expensive as the 200/2.8
3.) The Lenses have the same focal length and the same aperture.
Clyde
2 years ago |Check Photodo lens tests. The Canon 200mm rates .76 wide open, whereas the Maxxum rates .80 wide open. That is a considerable difference. They are basically the same after that. The Maxxum 200mm APO even rivals the Canon 135mm L.
Viewing Canon and Minolta lenses, and listing by MTF scores, the first wide angle to appear on the list is the Maxxum 28mm f2.0… even before the venerable Canon 35mm f1.4.
Vintage Maxxum lenses give no ground to anything new from Canon or anyone.
Chris Lewis
2 years ago |I agree with the article, I have one and it is superb! And to quote Photozone: “So is it still worth it ? Well, definitely – highly recommended! And Sony .. please bring it back to us. It’s really an easy win for you as well as your customers!”
This is a real Sony problem. NOT ENOUGH GOOD LENSES – TOO SLOW!
Look at the pentax Q for example, brand new and Pentax have already announced an additional 4 lenses, whereas the NEX has been out for some time …
I love my Sony equipment and I’m sure there are all sort of problems at the moment in post earthquake Japan, but this slowness is a historic problem.
There are so many legacy/Minolta lenses they could re-introduce (35/2, 135/2.8, 28-135, etc), so what’s keeping them?
SRL
2 years ago |What’s keeping them?
Return on investment that what’s keeping Sony from diving into the deep-end and creating and expanding A-Mount or E-Mount lenses.
Today’s cameras are more like a specially built computer than the SLR manufactured just a few years ago and Sony is very good at making this type of electronics and can do it chearper than maybe anyone else.
The components that Sony makes for its cameras it can and does also sell to other manufactures like Canon and Nikon and this increases its return on investment or (ROI).
Lenses are a different story for Sony
The manufacturing process to make lenses is very different than Sony’s core electronic business and would require a large up-front investment that would not deliver the ROI that Sony could get investing money elsewhere and in other business.
The volume of A-Mount and E-Mounts sales are currently just too small and the cost to build the manufacturing facilities is just too high for the bean-counters to allow and the shareholders to approve.
Sony is working on getting A and E Mount demand higher with all of the new products and maybe then, if we are lucky Sony will invest money into lenses.
Maybe, Sony will pay Zeiss to make lenses and not just be part of the design process.
That would be cool!
Whatever
2 years ago |You do realise that for the specialists take the Alpha mount a bit more seriously, you need a good spread of lenses? Otherwise, people are going to go to Nikon and Canon for their cameras. Zooms are fine, but if you want that extra sharpness, you need good primes.
Granted these specialists are few in number to the mass market, at the very list, Sony must provide an upgrade path for people so that there’s a ladder to scale. Otherwise, others will go elsewhere for that ladder.
SRL
2 years ago |Yes, I have about $7,500 with of A-mount glass that I use
much of it Zeiss, so my fear that Sony will get out of the A-Mount keeps me up at night
Helena
2 years ago |-edited, not here
Helena
2 years ago |You comment is very interesting. The things that you said explain the Sony behaviour.
-Sorry for my english
mf
2 years ago |I have the 80-200mm HS APO and its by far my best lens… I love the sharpness at almost every F stop..
awesome lens! but is this news???
Carl
2 years ago |I find mine a bit lacking in contrast.
Mike
2 years ago |Sony are an electronics driven company, a large corporation. They likely won’t really ever be in tune with enthusiasts needs and generally prefer to favor the bottom line when making decisions. So, it’s highly doubtful Sony will ever release many Minolta lenses that enthusiasts would like.
Too bad.
Olles
2 years ago |I bought this lens 200 Apo G (no HS) at a time, when even Minolta hat no DSLR – at a price of $ 600 (used) – people were throwing them away and moving to canon and nikon for their DSLRs.
Now I use the lens regularly for portraits and its my favorite lens along with the Minolta 85 1,4 and the Minolta 135 STF. Sharp and nice look to the images. I treat them like jewels. I am soo happy that Sony makes (made?) good cameras (I have the A700 and the A850 – both wonderfull cameras with individual strengths)
Marty4650
2 years ago |Why not just buy the Minolta lens?
Based on those ebay prices, the lens sells for between $1000 and $1200, which seems like a bargain compared to what a redesigned Sony (Zeiss?) version would cost.
A new version of this lens could easily cost twice as much.
Lee
2 years ago |200G 135za 35G plus the future 50za
Carl
2 years ago |The 50mm patent that Sony put out recently seems to be an in-house job, not a Zeiss design.
GV
2 years ago |I have a solution, get one if these http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129190-GREY/Canon_2529A004AA_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2_8L.html. Of course, you won’t be able to hold your breath any longer on that a700 replacement and you’ll have to buy a camera with an optical viewfinder, but hey, at least you can buy a brand new lens with a warranty for less than a 20 year old lens off eBay….
Sky_walker
2 years ago |But it’s not WHITE, so what’s the point?!
Carl
2 years ago |My 200/4 isn’t white. That made me sad.
myphotoshop
2 years ago |Lens made in 1989(as shown in photo), better check and test it before buying.
Sony does not service nor repair Minolta lenses. The buyer has to accept this risk before purchase.
Of cos it is a good lens, construction build much better than plastic material on lenses.
Jojo
2 years ago |Agree it’s a wonderful lens. Tried one of these back in the early 90s when I was looking for a new system – very impressed, but other gaps in the overall system package sent me to Canon for many years.
andy
2 years ago |I wish I’d stocked up on old minolta lenses before the DSLRs were announced. They would have gone for a fraction of the price.
Peter
2 years ago |I tried to substitue this jewel with a Sigma 180mm 2.8 or similar but people are convincing me that those are Macro lenses with lame AF, not designed for sport etc.
Why is Sigma putting a ultrasonic motor in a lens that cant be used for action?
Will have to buy the also good, but heavy 70-200 G SSM since there is practically no offer for this lens any more on the market.
Bruno_dn
11 months ago |That’s incredible! This lens is as expensive in second hand as the price I paid it new, in 1999 (8.000 French Francs i.e. 1220€)!
What a sumptuous lens! But what a noisy lens!