Leica 180mm… F2.0 vs. 2.8

[allegretto]

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...

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[allegretto]

Thank you all for your helpful input guys

2.8 APO it is...

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[allegretto]

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...

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[Telecaster]

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-

[XE11]

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. 

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[melchiorpavone]

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

[Jim Pascoe]

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......

[BernardLanguillier]

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