Impressed by the quality of the picture taken with the minolta manufactured 75-200 (in the comparison images provided by Andy Piper) I now wonder if anybody has any example images taken with the lens that I could look at - methinks it could make a useful backup lens...

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 04, 2001

Answers

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and, generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably. In my portfolio, the "bullfight" folder was taken with the zoom using ASA 800 film while traveling in Spain. In the "single photo folder", the pictue of the guy praying, the women's face with pink head ware, and the girl smelling the flower were also taken with the lens. The "girl with flower" was KL 200, with some camera movement. The other were Provia 400F. Good luck.

-- Joe Barbano (joseph.barbano@symmetron.com), February 01, 2002.

As backjground, I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I discovered that this individual also used the 75- 200mm zoom. I was impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and, generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

regarding your request, in my photo.net portfolio, the "bullfight" folder was taken with the zoom using ASA 800 film while traveling in Spain. In the "single photo folder", the pictue of the guy praying, the women's face with pink head ware, and the girl smelling the flower were also taken with the lens. The "girl with flower" was KL 200, with some camera movement. The other were Provia 400F. Good luck.

-- Joe Barbano (joseph.barbano@symmetron.com), February 01, 2002.