Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: allegretto on September 21, 2014, 08:38:33 pm
-
can anyone with some experience tell me which is likely to be a better all-around tele for an M240 and adapter
thank you in advance folks...
-
can anyone with some experience tell me which is likely to be a better all-around tele for an M240 and adapter
thank you in advance folks...
Which f/2.8? There have been 3. I like the Elmar too (F/4). That's the one I would recommend. I have owned four different Leica 180s.
-
can anyone with some experience tell me which is likely to be a better all-around tele for an M240 and adapter
If you are considering the APO lenses I'd pick the f/2.8 unless you wanted to put a tripod collar on the lens. The f/2.0 APO has an excellent tripod collar while add-ons for the f/2.8 will be more fiddly and less stable in practical use. Optically either is superb, the f/2.8 is much handier for carrying around. IMHO the primary drawbacks of the f/2.8 APO are the loose focussing ring (not enough resistance & can't be adjusted) and the lack of an integrated tripod collar. Early models of the f/2.8 APO cannot use the 1.4x APO extender but a conversion service was available.
Among the non-APO Leica 180mm lenses the f/4 Elmar has the closest minimum focus distance, is a very handy lightweight lens and uses common 55mm filters. It flares readily and I wasn't wowed by its optical performance. I don't have sufficient experience with the non-APO f/2.8 180mm lenses.
Have you also considered the f/3.4 APO? If the long minimum focus distance isn't a problem it's a bargain among Leica lenses. I'd look for a later model with E60 filter threads or an earlier one converted to E60.
-
If you are considering the APO lenses I'd pick the f/2.8 unless you wanted to put a tripod collar on the lens. The f/2.0 APO has an excellent tripod collar while add-ons for the f/2.8 will be more fiddly and less stable in practical use. Optically either is superb, the f/2.8 is much handier for carrying around. IMHO the primary drawbacks of the f/2.8 APO are the loose focussing ring (not enough resistance & can't be adjusted) and the lack of an integrated tripod collar. Early models of the f/2.8 APO cannot use the 1.4x APO extender but a conversion service was available.
Among the non-APO Leica 180mm lenses the f/4 Elmar has the closest minimum focus distance, is a very handy lightweight lens and uses common 55mm filters. It flares readily and I wasn't wowed by its optical performance. I don't have sufficient experience with the non-APO f/2.8 180mm lenses.
Have you also considered the f/3.4 APO? If the long minimum focus distance isn't a problem it's a bargain among Leica lenses. I'd look for a later model with E60 filter threads or an earlier one converted to E60.
I have owned four Leica 180s: the Apo-Telyt f/3.4, the f/4 Elmar, the old big fat 180 f/2.8, and the second-generation 180 f/2.8 (my current 180). The f/4 Elmar was great, but I wanted the additional speed. The Elmar is no slouch optically, and under-rated. I wish I could justify owning both it and the Elmarit Mk II. It gives much more pleasing images than the Apo-Telyt f/3.4. The Summicron is just too big and heavy for a general-purpose lens. I highly recommend the Elmar or the second-generation Elmarit. The early Apo f/3.4 lenses used an idiotic series 7.5 filter held in by a retaining ring.
-
The 180mm f2.8 APO that I have been using on my D800 may be the best tele for distant photography where it is just amazingly good.
It is still excellent but IMHO a bit less outstanding at closer range.
The focus on infinity performance over close range is apparently even stronger on earlier iterations of this lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you all for your helpful input guys
2.8 APO it is...
-
The 180mm f2.8 APO that I have been using on my D800 may be the best tele for distant photography where it is just amazingly good.
It is still excellent but IMHO a bit less outstanding at closer range.
The focus on infinity performance over close range is apparently even stronger on earlier iterations of this lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not sure what you mean. There has been only one version of the 180mm APO-Elmarit-R. There were two non-APO versions, first one from 1967 and second one from 1980.
All in all, there have been six 180mm lenses for the Leica R system, listed below, along with the approximate date they were introduced:
180mm Elmarit-R (1967) f/2.8
180mm APO-Telyt-R (1975) f/3.4
180mm Elmar-R (1977) f/4
180mm Elmarit-R II (1980) f/2.8
180mm APO-Summicron-R (1994) f/2
180mm APO-Elmarit-R (1997) f/2.8
I have owned examples of the first four at one time or another and can give an opinion on their quality.
I would be surprised if the 180mm APO-Elmarit-R is less good close-up. I understand it was internal focus (the barrel does not elongate) which is usually an indication that the lens has been designed to have very good close-up performance.
-
Thank you all for your helpful input guys
2.8 APO it is...
That would not be a bad choice, but the Elmar should not be overlooked if you need something light and compact above all. It would not be foolish to own both, considering how inexpensive the Elmar is in today's market. That's what I would do in your position.
Also, the second Elmarit (from 1980) is a gorgeous lens, and it is smaller and lighter than the APO version.
Remember, APO lenses are not necessarily better in every way. An "APO" designation means merely that chromatic aberrations are all but eliminated.
-
meichlor - ou seem to have the numbers well
do you have the model numbers so i know which one to get?
do you have a info on the later ones. With Leica the last may be the best... or worst... or somewhere in between...
-
meichlor - ou seem to have the numbers well
do you have the model numbers so i know which one to get?
do you have a info on the later ones. With Leica the last may be the best... or worst... or somewhere in between...
Not sure what you are asking.
-
There has been only one version of the 180mm APO-Elmarit-R.
Michael this is not correct. Please get your facts straight. When first introduced the 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R was not compatible with the 1.4x APO-Extender-R. An optical re-design moved the rear element forward so that it was compatible with the 1.4x extender. Leica offered a modification service to convert the earliest f/2.8 APO lenses to the compatible design.
-
Michael this is not correct. Please get your facts straight. When first introduced the 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R was not compatible with the 1.4x APO-Extender-R. An optical re-design moved the rear element forward so that it was compatible with the 1.4x extender. Leica offered a modification service to convert the earliest f/2.8 APO lenses to the compatible design.
I would call that a variant, a modification, not a version, but you are right of course that the lens was changed. It was not a redesign, though, such as the second Elmarit was.
-
I like the 180/4 Elmar a lot, though for sheer optical performance the f/2.8 APO is IMO a noticeably better lens. But the Elmar is compact & light & more likely to be carried around by someone (me, for instance) who uses long-ish lenses sparingly but likes to have one handy "just in case."
-Dave-
-
if i remember correctly the F3.4 was originally developed for Navy night time mission, so it was optimised for low light infinity focus.
just want to share my experience.
i have the F4 and the F2.8 non-APO. can't say too much about the F4 (while it's good, i didnt find it "special"). i find the F2.8 is better at closer range than inifinity. once object passes 15m mark, there is a drop in contrast and colour saturation. most importantly, it definitely lose the "pop" at lonoger range. :)
-
I like the 180/4 Elmar a lot, though for sheer optical performance the f/2.8 APO is IMO a noticeably better lens. But the Elmar is compact & light & more likely to be carried around by someone (me, for instance) who uses long-ish lenses sparingly but likes to have one handy "just in case."
-Dave-
Exactly! I may get another one even though I own the second Elmarit-R, which is very light and compact.
-
if i remember correctly the F3.4 was originally developed for Navy night time mission, so it was optimised for low light infinity focus.
just want to share my experience.
i have the F4 and the F2.8 non-APO. can't say too much about the F4 (while it's good, i didnt find it "special"). i find the F2.8 is better at closer range than inifinity. once object passes 15m mark, there is a drop in contrast and colour saturation. most importantly, it definitely lose the "pop" at lonoger range. :)
I hardly ever use mine at long distances, but I agree that for 'portrait' shots the lens is spectacular!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/
(No autofocus system can focus perfectly on the left eye as I have there, by the way.)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5497042589/
You may be seeing the effects of haze in distant shots, not a weakness in the lens itself.
-
I hardly ever use mine at long distances, but I agree that for 'portrait' shots the lens is spectacular!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/
(No autofocus system can focus perfectly on the left eye as I have there, by the way.)
Frankly, how do you know that?
Have you tried this kind of image recently with the latest bodies from Nikon/Canon?
Because I happen to have shot a near identical image 2 days ago with my D810 + 85mm f1.4 at 1.4 in full AF auto mode and got something at least as sharp on the eye.
I use MF a lot too with other lenses such as the Otus so I am open to both techniques but I am questioning whether your continued dismissal of AF is based on actual in depth first hand experience with the best available equipment or on some overall belief resulting from past experiences.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Frankly, how do you know that?
Have you tried this kind of image recently with the latest bodies from Nikon/Canon?
Because I happen to have shot a near identical image 2 days ago with my D810 + 85mm f1.4 at 1.4 in full AF auto mode and got something at least as sharp on the eye.
I use MF a lot too with other lenses such as the Otus so I am open to both techniques but I am questioning whether your continued dismissal of AF is based on actual in depth first hand experience with the best available equipment or on some overall belief resulting from past experiences.
Cheers,
Bernard
Auto-focusing systems work on different basis than manual focusing using the eye and brain. If you are focusing manually, you can focus on a plane, a slice of something (say you are photographing a smooth long surface such as a tube). This is impossible with auto-focusing. There are no 'features' for it to work with.
http://www.aluminiumwarehouse.co.uk/images/pRndTube_metal.jpg
-
I hardly ever use mine at long distances, but I agree that for 'portrait' shots the lens is spectacular!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6231857434/
(No autofocus system can focus perfectly on the left eye as I have there, by the way.)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5497042589/
You may be seeing the effects of haze in distant shots, not a weakness in the lens itself.
Funny that - my AF system seems to manage the left eye in these shots pictures - might just have been luck though I suppose......
-
Auto-focusing systems work on different basis than manual focusing using the eye and brain. If you are focusing manually, you can focus on a plane, a slice of something (say you are photographing a smooth long surface such as a tube). This is impossible with auto-focusing. There are no 'features' for it to work with.
You do know that recent bodies leverage image recognition technologies in the AF systems to identify faces and eyes in a image, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Funny that - my AF system seems to manage the left eye in these shots pictures - might just have been luck though I suppose......
Those look good.
-
Those look good.
They are competent, and the fact is that I could have used MF - but they were actually AF. The point being that I think the choice is a useful one sometimes. Once you have learned your gear, whether it be an antique Leica or the latest DSLR, it should just allow you to get on with the job of making pictures. I think I could make saleable pictures with either but in my opinion, and it is only mine, a modern DSLR will allow me to more often get good pictures than an all-manual film SLR would. And I'm thinking AF, high ISO and the fact I can shoot 1000 plus pictures on a CF or SD card.
Nothing wrong with older tech at all.
Jim
-
They are competent, and the fact is that I could have used MF - but they were actually AF. The point being that I think the choice is a useful one sometimes. Once you have learned your gear, whether it be an antique Leica or the latest DSLR, it should just allow you to get on with the job of making pictures. I think I could make saleable pictures with either but in my opinion, and it is only mine, a modern DSLR will allow me to more often get good pictures than an all-manual film SLR would. And I'm thinking AF, high ISO and the fact I can shoot 1000 plus pictures on a CF or SD card.
Nothing wrong with older tech at all.
Jim
The main advantage of current digital equipment is low-light capability and the ability to correct for various kinds of light sources. Films faster than ISO 400 have never been very good, and pushing simply doesn't work.
The latest color negative films from Kodak though (Portra 160 and 400) are spectacular. I have not tried the 800 speed stuff but I bet it is very much like ISO 400 films of the recent past.
-
Nothing wrong with older tech at all.
Jim
I just wonder how many people there are like me who simply refuse to be goaded into getting newer equipment, and stubbornly stick with manual-focussing film cameras? I am very disappointed about the loss of Kodachrome, but otherwise I'm fine. I have no intention of switching at all.
-
I just wonder how many people there are like me who simply refuse to be goaded into getting newer equipment, and stubbornly stick with manual-focussing film cameras? I am very disappointed about the loss of Kodachrome, but otherwise I'm fine. I have no intention of switching at all.
If I was goaded into replacing my film equipment and older lenses, I was the one doing the goading. The quality difference between my photos made with my film cameras (fine-grain color films and high-quality pre-APO lenses) and an older digital camera (10MP Leica DMR with Leica APO lenses) is striking. Gallery owners and their clients who have no idea what equipment I'm using see the difference too. There's no way I'll go back to using film, the productivity and image quality loss would be huge.
IMHO people who stubbornly cling to older equipment either have no economic interest in the resulting photographs or their photographs are so spectacular that people would buy them even if they were made with a Holga.
-
If I was goaded into replacing my film equipment and older lenses, I was the one doing the goading. The quality difference between my photos made with my film cameras (fine-grain color films and high-quality pre-APO lenses) and an older digital camera (10MP Leica DMR with Leica APO lenses) is striking. Gallery owners and their clients who have no idea what equipment I'm using see the difference too. There's no way I'll go back to using film, the productivity and image quality loss would be huge.
IMHO people who stubbornly cling to older equipment either have no economic interest in the resulting photographs or their photographs are so spectacular that people would buy them even if they were made with a Holga.
Well, how much is the APO lens (I believe you own the 280 f/4) and how much is the digital?
The latest color negative films from Kodak are great (Ektar 100, Porta 160 and 400).
I used one of those 280s in Germany at the Leica Academy back in 1995, and it was stunning. But it is far more expensive than either the 250mm Telyt-R or 350mm Telyt-R. The 350 has its own charms, and gives delightful images. The only really noticeable flaw is some vignetting and a little chromatic aberration. With most subject matter it is scarcely observable. I would love to own one of the 280s.
Taken with the 350:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14582246373/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/9337805225/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/7443464458/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/6276891608/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5497339741/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5497931384/
I do not sell my work as I have no interest in doing so.
-
Well, how much is the APO lens (I believe you own the 280 f/4) and how much is the digital?
It is the combination of both.
The image quality tends to be heavily impacted by the weakest link, in this case 35mm film.
Besides, the gap in image quality between the Leica DMR and a D810 is huge ad well.
Those wonderful APO lenses can easily be converted by Leitax for F mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, how much is the APO lens (I believe you own the 280 f/4) and how much is the digital?
either separately is a dramatic improvement.
The 350 has its own charms, and gives delightful images. The only really noticeable flaw is some vignetting and a little chromatic aberration.
I found the 350 to be rather soft and low contrast compared with the 280/4 (on the DMR) and even when compared with the 280 with 1.4x APO extender. IMHO the 350's greatest strength is its flare resistance. I can make photos made with the 280 softer if the photo needs it; I can't make photos made with the 350 sharper if the photo would benefit from it.
-
either separately is a dramatic improvement.
I found the 350 to be rather soft and low contrast compared with the 280/4 (on the DMR) and even when compared with the 280 with 1.4x APO extender. IMHO the 350's greatest strength is its flare resistance. I can make photos made with the 280 softer if the photo needs it; I can't make photos made with the 350 sharper if the photo would benefit from it.
Yes, but the cost is dramatically different ($7-9K vs $1-2K). And of course, the focal lengths are somewhat different. Of course I would like to own one of the 280s, but right now that is beyond my means. That may change in the future, of course.
-
Yes, but the cost is dramatically different ($7-9K vs $1-2K). And of course, the focal lengths are somewhat different. Of course I would like to own one of the 280s, but right now that is beyond my means. That may change in the future, of course.
Cost is a matter of timing, I paid less than 4,000 US$ for my 280 f4 APO 3 years ago and it was even less prior to that.
As an evangelist of MF and a Leica fan you don't seem to be planning your purchases very well my friend... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Cost is a matter of timing, I paid less than 4,000 US$ for my 280 f4 APO 3 years ago and it was even less prior to that.
+1
In 2004 I paid US$1600 for my first one. After spending several years and too much time and money looking for a less expensive backup I realized that the only suitable backup for this lens is another 280mm f/4 APO. I bought a second copy last year for $4500.
-
Cost is a matter of timing, I paid less than 4,000 US$ for my 280 f4 APO 3 years ago and it was even less prior to that.
As an evangelist of MF and a Leica fan you don't seem to be planning your purchases very well my friend... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, I wasn't really looking for it. I had always wanted one of the 350mm and bought one in 2010. we shall see what the future holds.
-
Well, I wasn't really looking for it. I had always wanted one of the 350mm and bought one in 2010. we shall see what the future holds.
If you do end up with the 280mm f/4 the odds are it will not be 3-cam so add the conversion cost to use it on your Leicaflex SL2. An APO lens as seen through the SL viewfinder is spectacular.
-
If you do end up with the 280mm f/4 the odds are it will not be 3-cam so add the conversion cost to use it on your Leicaflex SL2. An APO lens as seen through the SL viewfinder is spectacular.
You mean it will be a ROM? No big problem. It can be converted. I got a mint copy of the 350 for around $1K with shipping, and they seem to running higher now.
-
You mean it will be a ROM? No big problem.
Or R cam.
-
Or R cam.
Oh, well either way it's convertible.
The 350 has 25% greater focal length, so it's a bit unfair to compare them. The longer a lens is, the more difficult it is to correct for chromatic aberrations. For my purposes, the kind of photography I do of people and sports, the 350 is nearly perfect. The slightly softer impression is not unflattering.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14539077456/in/photostream/lightbox/
This shot is sharp enough to reveal she is wearing blue-tinted contact lenses.
I also own one of the 2nd generation 250mm Telyts, and it is not that much different in focal length from the 280 APO. It would be much fairer to compare the 250 and 280, and there I doubt you would see as dramatic a difference.
-
Oh, well either way it's convertible.
The 350 has 25% greater focal length, so it's a bit unfair to compare them.
I compared the 350 with the 280+1.4x extender for an equivalent focal length of 392mm. Negligible chromatic aberration, more saturated colors, finer detail with the 280+1.4x extender. Also quicker to focus and a tripod mount with 90 degree detents instead of 90 degree hard stops.
I also own one of the 2nd generation 250mm Telyts, and it is not that much different in focal length from the 280 APO. It would be much fairer to compare the 250 and 280, and there I doubt you would see as dramatic a difference.
Actually I did a direct comparison of the 2nd generation 250 when I first bought the 280/4 APO. The 280 has much less chromatic aberration, richer color saturation, much more fine detail, a closer minimum focus distance and the better tripod mount. After looking at the test slides the 250 was for sale. It wasn't even close.
-
I compared the 350 with the 280+1.4x extender for an equivalent focal length of 392mm. Negligible chromatic aberration, more saturated colors, finer detail with the 280+1.4x extender. Also quicker to focus and a tripod mount with 90 degree detents instead of 90 degree hard stops.
Actually I did a direct comparison of the 2nd generation 250 when I first bought the 280/4 APO. The 280 has much less chromatic aberration, richer color saturation, much more fine detail, a closer minimum focus distance and the better tripod mount. After looking at the test slides the 250 was for sale. It wasn't even close.
What I was saying is that you would see less difference than with the 350. Obviously the APO 280 is a superb lens, probably the best long lens in that range ever made by man. And as I have said before, it is a matter of cost. I used to own the first 250, bought back in 1972, and I was always impressed with it. My main objection was the weight and that the close focussing distance was so far. The focussing pitch was very low, which I liked. The newer one has a steeper pitch and sometimes I overshoot my subject.
-
What I was saying is that you would see less difference than with the 350.
I saw more difference.
-
I saw more difference.
Well I see less chromatic aberration with the 250 than with the 350. And that would be consistent with the laws of physics, because the longer the lens the greater the chromatic aberration, all things being equal. Since neither lens is an apochromat, it only makes sense that the 350 would have more chromatic aberration, and to my eye it does.
The second version of the 250 is lighter, longer, focusses closer, and has overall improved image quality.
http://collectiblend.com/Library/Leica_Lens_Compendium_Content.php
The 280 is in a class by itself, with a price tag to match. You don't have to tell me how good it is, I did use it in Germany in 1995 at the Leica Academy.
-
Well I see less chromatic aberration with the 250 than with the 350.
There's much more to the comparison than chromatic aberration. IIRC on another forum you didn't even see the spherochromatic aberration in the 560mm f/6.8 Telyt that I pointed out in one of your photos.
-
There's much more to the comparison than chromatic aberration.
Yes, I know that. Here is a page of photos taken with the 250:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/yoyo31/sets/72157625042549743/
My point is that I can see more chromatic aberration with the 350 than with the 250. The overall image quality of the 250 is higher, but that does not mean the 350 is a bad lens. It is a very good lens. The 280 APO is a superb lens. I am not sure whether there is a 1.4 APO teleconverter for the SL2 mount. Maybe you know. There were separate R and SL teleconverters, if I recall correctly. I have never used teleconverters.
The 250 is an excellent lens, the 280 APO is a superb lens, and the 350 is a very good lens. But they are all of different focal lengths and prices: you are not comparing apples to apples.
-
I am not sure whether there is a 1.4 APO teleconverter for the SL2 mount.
There is only one version of the 1.4x APO-Extender-R. As originally built it would not fit the Leicaflexes but a simple camera-end flange change fixed that problem. Auto-diaphragm still works, stop-down metering required on the SL and SL2, hand-held light meter or other means of determining exposure required with the original Leicaflex. It does not work with the 350 as originally built but I modified my 350 so it would fit. It was not worth the effort.
-
There is only one version of the 1.4x APO-Extender-R. As originally built it would not fit the Leicaflexes but a simple camera-end flange change fixed that problem. Auto-diaphragm still works, stop-down metering required on the SL and SL2, hand-held light meter or other means of determining exposure required with the original Leicaflex. It does not work with the 350 as originally built but I modified my 350 so it would fit. It was not worth the effort.
Well if I really wanted a teleconverter for that lens I would get an R camera then. As things stand, I would not do that, though I might try to get one of the 280 APO lenses. I have 180, 250, 350, 560mm lenses, and these are quite sufficient as things stand.
Here is a near-mint 350 for sale:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leitz-Leica-Telyt-Lens-350-4-8-in-Original-Box-Made-in-Germany-/231339738086?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item35dcec43e6