Do you need SSM?

[forbytes]

Hi to all,

I was thinking of a new thread to get this forum heated up. This subject came to my mind "Do you need SSM?". I believe you people have heard of the wonderful specs regarding this lens. I am listing a few questions/statements to help potential buyer of the lens make up their mind. SSM should be arriving the shores in 2004 so this thread may come in handy. My 2 cents.

1) Are you using Dynax 9 or 7?
Dynax 9 utilises a much faster cam-drive compared with the 7. Both 7 and 5 uses the same cam-drive (quoting from the minolta specs). So focusing of any lens with a Dynax 9 is relatively fast. How much time can you gain by using SSM? I have no idea. If you are doubtful of this statement, perhaps you can try focusing the 300/f2.8 using a dynax 9 and 7. You will be impressed. By the way, Dynax 9 user should enjoy a free upgrade of the camera to support the latest SSM lens (maybe a little bit of money).

2) Are you considering 70-200/f2.8 or 300/f2.8?
Currently in the lens setup, Minolta offer only 2 flavour of the lens. The first one will be a standard telezoom (which most people will be using most of the time) while the other is a prime telephoto lens. Both lens can use the new 1.4x or 2x SSM convertor. With regards to the MTF (sharpness test), my interpretation is that the 70-200 SSM lens is weaker than the current 80-200 G lens while the 300/f2.8 SSM is much better than the 300 G lens. Of coz MTF sharpness test is not everything to define whether a lens is good or not, other factors also comes in like colour reproduction and distortion etc.

A major strength of the 70-200 SSM lens over the 80-200 G lens is the much shorter minimum focus distance (1.2m compared with 1.8m). With such a short focusing distance, you can enjoy a larger magnification ratio 0.21 compared with 0.13. Same goes for the 300/f2.8 lens.

3) Are you thinking of using teleconvertors?
The main lens that most manufacturers promote for most of the shots are the 24-85,105 and 70,80-200 range. I want to highlight the use of the 80-200 G lens in particular. Currently, this lens cannot used with a Minolta Teleconvertor. Hence, the lack of compatibility with Minolta Teleconvertor limits the use of the lens. Some may want to use this lens with a convertor to shoot nature. The new 70-200 SSM has a compatible teleconvertor to get away from this old limitation.

4) Battery life on camera?
Well, nobody has ever mentioned this to be an issue. Personally, I find that this can be a concern for "really extented" trip. I know some pro photographers can shoot up to 48 rolls in a matter of 8 days overseas. This usage can be equal to half a year to a year of camera usage of an average shooter. We know these SSM lens are using some current (ampere) inductive principle to drive the lens. It should drink a lot of juice just by focusing them. maybe a VC goes real well with such lens.

5) Most importantly, price?
How will the price of Minolta SSM lens compared with other major brands (of the same class containing on-lens motor). A few feedback with some camera retailors indicated that the new SSM lens maybe more expansive than other major brands. I am not too sure about it. My opinion is as such, visit the minolta Japan website and take a look at the lens setup. There is a price attached to each lens (in Yen). Read off the price and remove away the last 2 zero and that should give you a fairly good indication of the street price (not recommended price). To convince yourself, you should already know some of the price of a few lens. Compare them to get the "reduction factor". I hope it works.

If any of you have any questions regarding the SSM lens, please continue this thread. The above are my personal thoughts with regards to the SSM lens. It may not be entirely correct and if it does not, please correct me. No offence to anybody.

Regards.

 

[YuHsuan]

Hi there,

I have both the 9 and 7. I bought the 7 first, about 2 years ago when it was first released and it has been a real workhorse for me. I just got the Dynax 9 2 months ago. Both are fantastic cameras.

How much to gain if I buy SSM lenses? I honestly dunno. I have tried the 80-200 G lens and its AF is fast enough for the work that I do if I do wish to use it. But I don't own one because I do not have opportunities to use it often enough. Even the 80-200 G is too heavy for me let alone the 70-200 SSM. I may buy the 28-70 SSM as most of my photography will be at this focal range and the old 28-70 G is really slow compared with the 80-200 G.

I won't comment on points 2 and 3 as these lenses are not really in my plans. For what its worth, I am still using the very old 70-210 f/4 and except for AF speed, that lens has absolutely everything. It was rumoured to have evolved from a Leica R design. In fact I have 2 pieces of this lens, one which I use extensively and another lens mint in the box to be kept. If only Minolta would release a SSM version of THAT lens......

Battery life? I think it shouldn't make that much of a difference. Body-driven lens systems consume a fair bit of electricity as well. Just FYI, I have been using the 9 actively since I bought it and I must have put through 20 rolls of film (without using the built in flash) through it already and I haven't had to change the first set of CR123 batteries yet.

Well as for price? I believe that it will not be more expensive then the Canon L lenses. Minolta isn't Contax or Leica, its products have always been marketed at a price that is comparable or even lower to other brand products with similar specs. This is true especially for SLR camera bodies.

But I would be interested to follow the development of these lenses even though my photograhy presently do no require them. The sucess of these lenses together with any future DSLR will decide minolta's future market share in the semi-pro and pro group.

Hi to all,

I was thinking of a new thread to get this forum heated up. This subject came to my mind "Do you need SSM?". I believe you people have heard of the wonderful specs regarding this lens. I am listing a few questions/statements to help potential buyer of the lens make up their mind. SSM should be arriving the shores in 2004 so this thread may come in handy. My 2 cents.

1) Are you using Dynax 9 or 7?
Dynax 9 utilises a much faster cam-drive compared with the 7. Both 7 and 5 uses the same cam-drive (quoting from the minolta specs). So focusing of any lens with a Dynax 9 is relatively fast. How much time can you gain by using SSM? I have no idea. If you are doubtful of this statement, perhaps you can try focusing the 300/f2.8 using a dynax 9 and 7. You will be impressed. By the way, Dynax 9 user should enjoy a free upgrade of the camera to support the latest SSM lens (maybe a little bit of money).

2) Are you considering 70-200/f2.8 or 300/f2.8?
Currently in the lens setup, Minolta offer only 2 flavour of the lens. The first one will be a standard telezoom (which most people will be using most of the time) while the other is a prime telephoto lens. Both lens can use the new 1.4x or 2x SSM convertor. With regards to the MTF (sharpness test), my interpretation is that the 70-200 SSM lens is weaker than the current 80-200 G lens while the 300/f2.8 SSM is much better than the 300 G lens. Of coz MTF sharpness test is not everything to define whether a lens is good or not, other factors also comes in like colour reproduction and distortion etc.

A major strength of the 70-200 SSM lens over the 80-200 G lens is the much shorter minimum focus distance (1.2m compared with 1.8m). With such a short focusing distance, you can enjoy a larger magnification ratio 0.21 compared with 0.13. Same goes for the 300/f2.8 lens.

3) Are you thinking of using teleconvertors?
The main lens that most manufacturers promote for most of the shots are the 24-85,105 and 70,80-200 range. I want to highlight the use of the 80-200 G lens in particular. Currently, this lens cannot used with a Minolta Teleconvertor. Hence, the lack of compatibility with Minolta Teleconvertor limits the use of the lens. Some may want to use this lens with a convertor to shoot nature. The new 70-200 SSM has a compatible teleconvertor to get away from this old limitation.

4) Battery life on camera?
Well, nobody has ever mentioned this to be an issue. Personally, I find that this can be a concern for "really extented" trip. I know some pro photographers can shoot up to 48 rolls in a matter of 8 days overseas. This usage can be equal to half a year to a year of camera usage of an average shooter. We know these SSM lens are using some current (ampere) inductive principle to drive the lens. It should drink a lot of juice just by focusing them. maybe a VC goes real well with such lens.

5) Most importantly, price?
How will the price of Minolta SSM lens compared with other major brands (of the same class containing on-lens motor). A few feedback with some camera retailors indicated that the new SSM lens maybe more expansive than other major brands. I am not too sure about it. My opinion is as such, visit the minolta Japan website and take a look at the lens setup. There is a price attached to each lens (in Yen). Read off the price and remove away the last 2 zero and that should give you a fairly good indication of the street price (not recommended price). To convince yourself, you should already know some of the price of a few lens. Compare them to get the "reduction factor". I hope it works.

If any of you have any questions regarding the SSM lens, please continue this thread. The above are my personal thoughts with regards to the SSM lens. It may not be entirely correct and if it does not, please correct me. No offence to anybody.

Regards.

 

[forbytes]

Thanks YuHsuan for his commments.

 

[vader]

The 80-200 ultilise only one piece of AD glass but the 70-200 uses 4 if I'm not wrong. I'll still keep my 80-200 because the 70-210 is too ex... 80-200 is good enough for me at the moment.

 

[yeocolin]

personally, I won't use any of the ssm lens because I don't need that kind of speed for the kind of telephoto range. At best I may get 80-200 SSM, but only if I'm getting paid to do wedding or other event coverage, which require telephoto and speed. 300 SSM is superfluous for me since I'm not a nature fan and won't need that kind of telephoto and quality to shoot birds. I'm happy with my vitacon 100-300mm lens at this aspect.

G lens alone are out of my range, let alone SSM lens. However, it'll still be interesting to watch the developments. Successful launch of SSM lens is suggestive that Minolta may go on to launch SSM lens of other focal range and other new fancy technology. I'm always fascinated at how the engineers come out with these wonderful motor, IS technologies.

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

Hi to all,
1) Are you using Dynax 9 or 7?
Dynax 9 utilises a much faster cam-drive compared with the 7. Both 7 and 5 uses the same cam-drive (quoting from the minolta specs). So focusing of any lens with a Dynax 9 is relatively fast. How much time can you gain by using SSM? I have no idea. If you are doubtful of this statement, perhaps you can try focusing the 300/f2.8 using a dynax 9 and 7. You will be impressed.

I am using both the 7 and the 9, and the 300/2.8. I firmly hold the opinion that the 7 is superior in its autofocus operation even with this lens. It tracks better, and IMO it is a tiny bit faster too. This is also backed up by the specs -- Minolta claimed the world's fastest AF with a 300/2.8, and they would probably not make that claim if the 7 wasn't faster than the 9.

I will not upgrade to the 300 SSM, as it costs way too much money. I use my "old" 300/2.8 "high-speed APO G" too little as it is.

2) Are you considering 70-200/f2.8 or 300/f2.8?

I was seriously considering the 70-200 to replace my broken 200/2.8, but was let down by the extremely inflated price of that lens -- it costs as much as a comparable Canon lens, but lacks IS. The Canon non-IS (but USM) 70-210/2.8 L is 40% cheaper! The 70-200 needs a drastic price cut, around 30%, for me to consider it again. Luckily Minolta managed to repair my 200/2.8 a few days ago (after a few years of trying) so I'm less interested in buying the SSM lens anyway...

With regards to the MTF (sharpness test), my interpretation is that the 70-200 SSM lens is weaker than the current 80-200 G lens while the 300/f2.8 SSM is much better than the 300 G lens. Of coz MTF sharpness test is not everything to define whether a lens is good or not, other factors also comes in like colour reproduction and distortion etc.

You are correct, and I have also discussed this on the Minolta Mailing List... the new lens is much less sharp in the corners, but on the other hand has beautiful bokeh (judging from both MTF and sample shots).

Well, nobody has ever mentioned this to be an issue. Personally, I find that this can be a concern for "really extented" trip. I know some pro photographers can shoot up to 48 rolls in a matter of 8 days overseas. This usage can be equal to half a year to a year of camera usage of an average shooter. We know these SSM lens are using some current (ampere) inductive principle to drive the lens. It should drink a lot of juice just by focusing them. maybe a VC goes real well with such lens.

I find it unlikely that the in-lens motor drains significantly more than the in-body focusing motor. Rather, the opposite. Of course with the new lens manual focusing to conserve battery power is no longer an option, as the focusing is motor-driven even in manual focus mode. Anyway, I don't think it is an issue -- most photographers using lenses of this class are using professional grade cameras with vertical grips, and few would leave their spare batteries at home...

Addressing the original question, "do you need SSM", well, faster AF is always "needed" (ie, nice to have). Quieter AF is a plus too. But for me, AF is not mainly a matter of fast focusing, it is a matter of acquiring focus and holding on to it. As in "not hunting"! That is something I'd like to see better done, and I think future digital cameras have the prerequisites to do it; with better tracking, AF speed isn't much of an issue anymore. Ultra-fast AF may be good for snapshots, but which serious photographer takes only snapshots?

 

[TME]

I won't be able to afford an SSM lens but just want to ask if having SSM means the lens would hunt less? Or is that a separate issue from the speed of the AF? I find hunting lens rather irritating but I suppose I can't do anything about it with my consumer grade lens except to pre-focus. Although at times even when the focus is slightly off, the lens still hunts for whatever reason. I'm referring to the Minolta 100-400 APO at f/5.6 aperture which I usually use.

 

[forbytes]

Something funny to add,

Minolta users have different mentality about Minolta setup. In 1 part of the world they are screaming for USM style driven lens and IS lens so that Minolta will be on-par with the rest of the competition.

In another part of the world given them the choice of SSM lens, they do not seem to be keen in getting.

Perhaps that is why Minolta did not pay too much attention on local market.

I now wonder, when Minolta release DSLR in Singapore, will the response be lukewarm which is similar to the SSM? No offence to anyone. My opinion. :embrass:

 

[TME]

Something funny to add,

Minolta users have different mentality about Minolta setup. In 1 part of the world they are screaming for USM style driven lens and IS lens so that Minolta will be on-par with the rest of the competition.

In another part of the world given them the choice of SSM lens, they do not seem to be keen in getting.

Perhaps that is why Minolta did not pay too much attention on local market.

I now wonder, when Minolta release DSLR in Singapore, will the response be lukewarm which is similar to the SSM? No offence to anyone. My opinion. :embrass:

Hahaha....... it's not for me but does not mean that Minolta should not come up with new products. I think at the moment SSM lens are a lot more expensive compared to ordinary lenses... maybe when Minolta starts incorporating it into the consumer lens like what Canon has done with their USM, then u see more ordinary people like me with very ordinary wallets buying SSM lens...... at the moment it's simply unaffordable.... costs more than a month's salary.......

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

I won't be able to afford an SSM lens but just want to ask if having SSM means the lens would hunt less? Or is that a separate issue from the speed of the AF? I find hunting lens rather irritating but I suppose I can't do anything about it with my consumer grade lens except to pre-focus. Although at times even when the focus is slightly off, the lens still hunts for whatever reason. I'm referring to the Minolta 100-400 APO at f/5.6 aperture which I usually use.

Hunting is only something related to the AF system of the camera. A Dynax 7 (for example) with a SSM lens will hunt just as much as a identical camera with a non-SSM, driven-by-motor-in-body lens (eg, 70-200/2.8 SSM versus 80-200/2.8).

But: A factor contributing to hunting is the maximum aperture, a darker aperture will lead to more hunting in tricky situations, because the sensor in the camera gets less to work with (lower contrast differences, or rather, more likely that the contrast area is too dark for the sensor's sensitivity). Thus, your 100-400 (which must count as a "prosumer" lens) will always be more hunt-prone than, say, a fixed "professional" 100/2 or 300/2.8 or a 80-200/2.8; but that is not a function of anything other than the lower light transmission of your lens. If your lens had SSM, all other things being equal, it would still hunt just as much.

 

[Zerstorer]

SSM/HSM/AFS/USM lenses tend to have better focus tracking and precision compared to screwdriver designs. This is probably due to the fact that the torque is generate within the lens and not transmitted along a thin screw coupled from camera body to lens.

The net result is that they seem to acquire focus faster and with less re-adjustments. Whether the difference is significant to the user depends on individual needs and preferences.

One thing to note however is the potential cost of repair due to motor failure. A nikon AFS80-200 costs $700 for motor replacement and a Sigma 70-200HSM costs $280. This is not an inconsiderable amount and somehow such failures seem to occur at a higher frequency than other faults.

 

[yeocolin]

Something funny to add,

Minolta users have different mentality about Minolta setup. In 1 part of the world they are screaming for USM style driven lens and IS lens so that Minolta will be on-par with the rest of the competition.

In another part of the world given them the choice of SSM lens, they do not seem to be keen in getting.

Perhaps that is why Minolta did not pay too much attention on local market.

I now wonder, when Minolta release DSLR in Singapore, will the response be lukewarm which is similar to the SSM? No offence to anyone. My opinion. :embrass:

Your opinions are valid and true, although I don't think it should be a reason why Minolta should baulk at producing SSM or IS similiar technology.

A little sidetrack: I don't think Minolta will go into IS, but rather with stabalising the CCD, like what they did with their top end prosumer digital camera. In this way, they don't have to produce a whole new line of lenses (cheaper) and consumers just have to change the body and yet can keep to their old lenses (even greater savings!)

Back to main track: I find it strange that Minolta users baulk at the high costs of SSM lens, but the Canon and Nikon users (I'm talking about the usual CS members, not the pros) are happily using HSM, IS lens, AF-S lens and such. Are Canon and Nikon users more keen to splurge in lens expenditure and Minolta users more prudent with their purchases? Or do Minolta users believe more strongly that its the photographer, rather than equipment that make pictures great, thus prefer to concentrate on the craft rather than the tools?

 

[TME]

Back to main track: I find it strange that Minolta users baulk at the high costs of SSM lens, but the Canon and Nikon users (I'm talking about the usual CS members, not the pros) are happily using HSM, IS lens, AF-S lens and such. Are Canon and Nikon users more keen to splurge in lens expenditure and Minolta users more prudent with their purchases? Or do Minolta users believe more strongly that its the photographer, rather than equipment that make pictures great, thus prefer to concentrate on the craft rather than the tools?

Perhaps many "amateurs" including myself take to Minolta cos of its very good value for money bodies..... so perhaps we're just less willing to spend on high end lens, settling for the lower end which serves us nonetheless.

Nikon and Canon have less expensive substitutes from Sigma (HSM) whereas Minolta does not. We all know that often originals cost more than 3rd party.... so maybe, just maybe that is a factor.... perhaps after using HSM (which is reversed engineered), they might find the original USM, SVM much better and thus pay for it. We dun have an entry level motor-driven lens so to speak to whet our appetites.... very often once u get use to something, u'll jsut go ahead and pay for it..... just like I can't get use to using prosumer digicams cos I dun get the same feel like using an SLR...... so I rather not buy and use one in the interim but wait for Minolta to produce a DSLR (if they ever will.....)

Just an opinion...

 

[TME]

SSM/HSM/AFS/USM lenses tend to have better focus tracking and precision compared to screwdriver designs. This is probably due to the fact that the torque is generate within the lens and not transmitted along a thin screw coupled from camera body to lens.

The net result is that they seem to acquire focus faster and with less re-adjustments. Whether the difference is significant to the user depends on individual needs and preferences.

One thing to note however is the potential cost of repair due to motor failure. A nikon AFS80-200 costs $700 for motor replacement and a Sigma 70-200HSM costs $280. This is not an inconsiderable amount and somehow such failures seem to occur at a higher frequency than other faults.

Can I clarify - Are u saying that with the motor, even though the lens hunts, the time taken to settle on focus is faster because the lens travels back and forth faster? If that is so, then would it then imply that SSM lens "hunt less"? Or maybe we should say that it recovers from hunting faster?

The frequent motor breakdown, is it due to the hunting issue? I mean I can see that frequent zooming up and down the lens will cause the motor to wear out faster in a bid to register focus.

 

[Jed]

See below.

 

[forbytes]

When I started this thread, my intention was to list the main difference between the older G lens vs the newer SSM G lens. I do not advocate people to buy them. Photographers should know the limits of their equipment before commiting to purchase new SSM lens.

I recognises the pro and cons of both type of lens. I feel that others reading the thread are also sensible and creative people who are constantly working to break the limits of their equipment. In a way, we Minolta users are forced to think that way as the newer equipments seems to reach our shores at a slower pace compared with the rest of the world.

My list is not complete and not exhaustive. You may want to add more issues you feel important. Lets working along that line to make this thread a worthwhile topic for sometime.

I wish to thank people that have spent their time on writing and reading this thread. May you continue to have beautiful pictures in year 2004 using Minolta gears.

Regards.

 

[YuHsuan]

Whether or not you are shooting professionally or not, the purchase of these sort of equipment depends on your type of photography. What do you shoot most of the time?
The urge to splurge is in all of us, but we have to ask ourselves: What type of photography do I do? What are the present shortcomings in my photography? Will the purchase of a new lens address these shortcomings?

Of course, one could argue that sometimes it is the purchase of a new lens that can open up one's photography to new areas. I was re-reading Roger Hicks and Francis Shultz's book on lenses and how the unexpected purchase of a 300mm F/2.8 lens allowed them to open up their photography to new areas that they had previously thought they were not interested in.

However, when I ask myself: Will a SSM lens open up my photography or improve the kind of photography that I am presently doing? I don't think so. Of course, YMMV.

Back to main track: I find it strange that Minolta users baulk at the high costs of SSM lens, but the Canon and Nikon users (I'm talking about the usual CS members, not the pros) are happily using HSM, IS lens, AF-S lens and such. Are Canon and Nikon users more keen to splurge in lens expenditure and Minolta users more prudent with their purchases? Or do Minolta users believe more strongly that its the photographer, rather than equipment that make pictures great, thus prefer to concentrate on the craft rather than the tools?

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

SSM/HSM/AFS/USM lenses tend to have better focus tracking and precision compared to screwdriver designs. This is probably due to the fact that the torque is generate within the lens and not transmitted along a thin screw coupled from camera body to lens.

Precision, yes; better focus tracking, not necessarily. As a mechanical gear train has more play than the direct-driven operation of a SSM/USM drive mechanism, there will probably be more micro-hunting with the former if "overshooting" focusing. Also, piezo motors may have faster start/stop times. But nothing of this are facts engraved in stone. In practice, the Dynax 9 is as fast as a EOS 3 in focusing with comparable lenses (USM for the Canon). Note that the Dynax 7 is even faster... but the EOS 1v won't improve focusing speed; the motor is fixed in the lens. I'd rather upgrade one camera body than my whole lens range.

And of course, hunting has absolutely nothing to do with the thickness of the focus coupler, or indeed with the focus coupler at all. USM is no big thing and won't improve anyone's photography. IS, on the other hand, may give some real benefits to some people, but personally I have a "ho hum" approach to it, too.

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

A little sidetrack: I don't think Minolta will go into IS, but rather with stabalising the CCD, like what they did with their top end prosumer digital camera. In this way, they don't have to produce a whole new line of lenses (cheaper) and consumers just have to change the body and yet can keep to their old lenses (even greater savings!)

I hope they go this way too, but still, in-body IS doesn't justify a higher price for the lenses in my opinion. The AS system used in the A1 also has some drawbacks; the biggest is that it can't be cooled by a large heatsink, as that would increase the mass that needs to be moved significantly. No heatsink = more heat = more noise. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs...

Back to main track: I find it strange that Minolta users baulk at the high costs of SSM lens, but the Canon and Nikon users (I'm talking about the usual CS members, not the pros) are happily using HSM, IS lens, AF-S lens and such. Are Canon and Nikon users more keen to splurge in lens expenditure and Minolta users more prudent with their purchases?

For me, it's simply a case of too little for my money. Right now Minolta doesn't offer IS. If I was to spend US$2500 on a 70-200(ish) lens, I'd rather buy the Canon lens with IS than the Minolta without, as the Canon lens would allow me to get some shots I wouldn't otherwise. The Nikon lens with VR (their version of IS) is even less expensive than the Canon! SSM alone is absolutely not worth the extra US$1000 above the old 80-200 (which I can get used, of course, for even less money). The Minolta SSM lens is simply way, way too expensive -- I'd call it absurdly overpriced -- compared to the Nikon and Canon alternatives.

 

[Jed]

Well done Magnus. Breath of fresh air.