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

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 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.

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+


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.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

(Bill=A0Tuthill) 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

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/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Bill=A0Tuthill) 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

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/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Bill=A0Tuthill) 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

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/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Bill=A0Tuthill) 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

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/AnOverc...otographyLinks

AnOvercomer 02 wrote:


(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

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. There are variations between lenses, one
300 f4 might perform well and another be a "dog".

The dog factor is always present. I suspect that the test the Bill posted is
somehow flawed, as opposed to the tested lens itself.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

AnOvercomer 02 wrote:


(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

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. There are variations between lenses, one
300 f4 might perform well and another be a "dog".

The dog factor is always present. I suspect that the test the Bill posted is
somehow flawed, as opposed to the tested lens itself.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

(Alan=A0Browne) 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

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/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Alan=A0Browne) 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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

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/AnOverc...otographyLinks