Minolta SSM lenses, 300/2.8 & 70-200/2.8

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Bill Tuthill, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    On photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm (magazine test composite score)
    the Minolta 70-200m APO SSM G is highest rated in its class, but the
    Minolta 300/2.8 APO SSM G has not yet appeared, perhaps not having been
    tested by enough magazines yet. The old non-SSM Minolta 300/2.8 APO G
    is the lowest rated in its group.

    Apparently the new one is also bad. Both SSM 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
    were tested for the March(?) 2004 issue of Popular Photography magazine.
    I wrote down SQF scores for the 300/2.8 SSM because they surprised me
    due to shockingly poor performance at f/4.

    f/ 5x7 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x24
    2.8 A+ A B C D
    4 A+ A- C+ D F
    5.6 A+ A B C D
    8 A+ A+ B+ C+ D
    11 A+ A+ B B+ B
    16 A+ A+ B B+ B
    22 A+ A+ B B C+
     
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Tuthill

    Alan Browne Guest

    The possibilty exists that the test had a fluky f/4 shot (focus error at time of
    the shot?). The table above just does not make sense (f/4).

    I have the 300 f/2.8 G and while it is generally a very good lens, it is very
    prone to flare. It is sharp, but not as sharp as the Canon and Nikon 300's.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. (Bill Tuthill) wrote:
    On photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm (magazine test composite score)
    the Minolta 70-200m APO SSM G is highest rated in its class, but the
    Minolta 300/2.8 APO SSM G has not yet appeared, perhaps not having been
    tested by enough magazines yet. The old non-SSM Minolta 300/2.8 APO G is
    the lowest rated in its group.
    Apparently the new one is also bad. Both SSM 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 were
    tested for the March(?) 2004 issue of Popular Photography magazine. I
    wrote down SQF scores for the 300/2.8 SSM because they surprised me due
    to shockingly poor performance at f/4.
    ==============================

    It's best to take lens test scores with a grain of salt.
    On Photodo the Canon EF 300 f4L USM scores a 4.3 and the 300 f4L IS USM
    scores a 3.4. I doubt that IS affects the resolution of that lens that
    much, if at all. I believe that there is a flaw either in the testing
    method or the IS lens tested. There are variations between lenses, one
    300 f4 might perform well and another be a "dog".



    Cody,

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer 02, Dec 14, 2004
    #3
  4. (Bill Tuthill) wrote:
    On photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm (magazine test composite score)
    the Minolta 70-200m APO SSM G is highest rated in its class, but the
    Minolta 300/2.8 APO SSM G has not yet appeared, perhaps not having been
    tested by enough magazines yet. The old non-SSM Minolta 300/2.8 APO G is
    the lowest rated in its group.
    Apparently the new one is also bad. Both SSM 300/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 were
    tested for the March(?) 2004 issue of Popular Photography magazine. I
    wrote down SQF scores for the 300/2.8 SSM because they surprised me due
    to shockingly poor performance at f/4.
    ==============================

    It's best to take lens test scores with a grain of salt.
    On Photodo the Canon EF 300 f4L USM scores a 4.3 and the 300 f4L IS USM
    scores a 3.4. I doubt that IS affects the resolution of that lens that
    much, if at all. I believe that there is a flaw either in the testing
    method or the IS lens tested. There are variations between lenses, one
    300 f4 might perform well and another be a "dog".



    Cody,

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer 02, Dec 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Alan Browne Guest

    IS has no improving effect on resolution. (and possibly reduces the resolution
    of the lens if it is incorporated in a lens element that otherwise would not be
    in the lens system.)
    The dog factor is always present. I suspect that the test the Bill posted is
    somehow flawed, as opposed to the tested lens itself.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 14, 2004
    #5
  6. (Alan Browne) wrote:
    IS has no improving effect on resolution. (and possibly reduces the
    resolution of the lens if it is incorporated in a lens element that
    otherwise would not be in the lens system.)
    method or the IS lens tested.
    ==========================

    In the case of the EF 300 f4 lenses on Photodo, the IS lens scored 9
    points lower than the non IS version and I don't think IS has much
    effect on resolution, not that much anyway.



    Cody,

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer 02, Dec 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill

    Alan Browne Guest

    IS and resolution are not related items.

    Loss of resolution comes from the inability of glass to transmit shorter
    wavelenghts of light. More glass generally results in less resolution as your
    statment above suggests: the non-IS lens scored a bit higher.

    IS (image stbilization) is a means of compensating for physically moving the
    lens in pitch and yaw __during__ the exposure period. IOW it reduces blurring
    due to movement. Blurring indeed reduces resolution of an image but it's due to
    movement not basic optical quality.

    The presence of the glass elements that are used to perform IS (or VR for the
    Nikon folks) adds glass which reduces resolution. But in cases where movement
    is expected the improvement from IS is better than the best lens in that class
    can do without IS in the presence of movement. Blur is blur.

    If it were (or is) the case that the glass element used to correct for movement
    was a lens element that was already required in any case, then there would be no
    loss of resolution and only the benefit of IS would remain.

    Is that better?

    "My expectations were reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has
    been a bonus." --Stephen Hawking replies to 'how do you keep your spirits up?'

    in NYT 12 Dec 2004.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 14, 2004
    #7
  8. AnOvercomer 02, Dec 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Alan Browne Guest

    not "wavelengths" but higher line spatial frequencies. Sorry.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 15, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.