Leica 180mm… F2.0 vs. 2.8

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

You mean it will be a ROM? No big problem.

Or R cam.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[melchiorpavone]

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.

[telyt]

What I was saying is that you would see less difference than with the 350.

I saw more difference.

[melchiorpavone]

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.