answers: 13

  1. anonym
    07.07.2019

    My eyes!!! 3.3 horror even on ff 12 mp

    Reply

  2. Paul
    07.07.2019

    This is how they say that there are no bad 135-nicknames, just like there are no good 200-nicknames with aperture of 3,3-3,5. Their aperture 3,3 is purely a publicity stunt, due to the low optical quality, the real light transmission of such lenses is close to the open aperture 4. And the MDF is monstrous ... 😨
    I bought such a Promaster 200 / 3,3 just to rearrange its backrest with an OM mount on a Vivitar 135 / 2,8 Macro, which was originally with this mount, but I got it with an artisanal M42 thread.
    For those who like “two hundred manuals” I can recommend looking for them with aperture 4 (2,8 is a completely different song, different plastic of the drawing and, alas, different prices). I myself shoot with Olympus OM Zuiko 200/4, which, in my opinion, is the sharpest of manual 200-nicks with aperture 4. A couple of examples on open:
    https://psv4.userapi.com/c848032/u186682217/docs/d14/e250ece4dd08/IMG_7838.jpg?extra=8z3fEDRZSxMdbf6CqcPIf8uxGFWiXu-QBlK08DLS-LYNa4au4SLpF3kvh3DOIDLvPiRAqHGD7jdP8yVlBRbrP-FFvYMtoq7FQJ0ZxQGeWpMrjeoikzERYX74BHHH_vLsBVt5K0ctHiY6PZrGPDUGkrY
    https://psv4.userapi.com/c848224/u186682217/docs/d16/4b7e979f66d8/IMG_7846.jpg?extra=39Nph8Hle4OVPtsh0DNBOpcftBBuxAj0so-ytawd8E4JApp2_XL65Kc9cc8c6JxlDJrTofIdpD6kIlB7ygH0bSQAxhcfTcTHPx0qqbPxwGqWMew9gpX0QYWeU74fKTg-mtr9LczRYXjOtq0psOjA2bA

    Reply

    • Eugen
      07.07.2019

      There is a Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar 200 mm f / 3.5 C / Y. Also not ideal (softit), but against the background of those close in class and age, he is very good.

      Reply

    • Sergei
      08.07.2019

      It is not at all a fact - there are different budget light 200s. My Konica Hexanon 200 mm f / 3.5 is fine for me in the open :)

      Reply

  3. anonym
    07.07.2019

    The most interesting phrase in this review is: “RAW accidentally got lost”. Arkady, if not a secret, how?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      07.07.2019

      Accidentally

      Reply

  4. Victor
    08.07.2019

    Strange, but what MIRACLE the author hoped for? I have long suggested: when developing such reviews, always, in parallel, show a reference model. And so, the conversation is pointless.

    Reply

  5. Kirill
    08.07.2019

    Interesting drawing near the glass, which reminded me of SIGMA YS 135 \ 2.8! Che is not so again "from God to photographers"

    Reply

  6. Igor
    09.07.2019

    DO NOT INSERT PICTURE, ONE EMPTY BAZAR REMAINED.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      09.07.2019

      Image add function restored

      Reply

  7. Carl Zeiss
    11.07.2019

    The colors are juicy. The background washes beautifully. But enlightenment of the old model. And the bokeh is unpleasant, sharp and torn. Conclusion: to the museum.

    Reply

  8. anonym
    22.07.2019

    Haha. "To the museum!". Karl is a diplomat. Chromate how! But the review is still great. And how nice to see Cypride again! No other models on this blog will ever match her!

    Reply

  9. Philippe Zilliox
    19.10.2022

    Hi. Please note that there are 4 versions of 200mm f3, 3 and the brands list you mention applies to different versions.
    The one you have tested is a Makina with a 67mm filter thread. Probably the worst.
    Then there is a more recently improved Makina with a 62mm thread.
    Then a Makina made with an extra forward focusing “macro setting ring”
    Finally, a very different Cymko made with a 62mm thread, and much better minimum focusing distance. That lens is considered the best of the lot.

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer