Forum Übersicht - A-Bajonett-Objektive » 2,8/70-200mm SSM

ich zititre hier einen Beitrag aus der Yahho Minolta group:
ZITATSubject: 70-200 SSM vs. other fast telephotos test

For those of you who might be interested,  Practical Photography
features a test of fast telephoto lenses in August 2004 issue.
Regardless of whether you love or hate magazine tests, the results
concerning optical quality are interesting.

The lenses tested include:
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S ED
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 G AF-S VR
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L UIS
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM
Konica Minolta 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM

Two lenses (Canon and Nikon VR) feature image stabilisation, the
rest are plain fast telephotos (well, the 120-300 Sigma stands out a
bit with its range as well). Accordingly, the former 2 lenses got 5
stars for features, the Minolta lens got 4 (closest minimum focusing
distance) and the rest got 3 stars each.

For handling, the Canon and Nikon VR got 5 stars whereas the Sigma
70-200, the Nikon and the Minolta got 4. The 120-300 Sigma got 3
stars (big, heavy and unusable for handholding situations).

Optical quality was measured by shooting resolution charts at both
ends of the zooms wide open. Why wide open only? Well, the reasoning
is that you buy fast lenses to make use of those 2.8 apertures.
Stopped down, all of these should give excellent results. In terms
of image quality the Nikon 80-200 and the Sigma 120-300 got top
marks with all the other lenses given 4 stars each. However, since
PP published the resolution chart shots, it is here that I disagree
with their grading. It is obvious to me from looking at these charts
that the Canon lens is the worst at the long end - discernibly
softer from the other results and thus not on par with the other
lenses. This comes as a surprise to me. Similarly, the Sigma 70-200
was easily the softest lens at the short end (while giving excellent
results at 200mm). The Konica Minolta SSM lens was pleasingly
excellent at both ends in terms of sharpness and showed only some
distortion at the short end. Optically, I'd put this lens in third
place, right behind the Nikon 80-200 and the Sigma 120-300 but the
differences between these 3 are not so pronounced to my eye.
However, I'm certain that these results show the Sigma and the Canon
lenses to be inferior optically.

The worst news is the comparison of prices. Well, I regarded the
Sigma 120-300 to be an expensive zoom. Still, the SSM lens is the
most expensive one here. Actually, you can have one of the Nikons or
the Canon lens PLUS the 70-200 Sigma for the same money!

Hope you find this useful. For more details check out the magazine.[/quote]

Ja, der Preis von den SSM Objektiven ist wirklich zum Abgewöhnen /wacko.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="wacko.gif" /> und hat auch einen kleinen (nicht unerheblichen) Betrag zu meinem Systemwechsel beigetragen...
Früher war Minolta mal preislich günstiger als die anderen! /ninja.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="ninja.gif" />

Du hast recht, Marcus! Ich bin mal echt neugierig, was sich Minolta dabei denkt, und wie sich das weiterentwickelt. Auf der Photokina wird's interessant!