|
||||||||
| Customer Forum The Leica Customer Forum is the place for discussions about the Leica in general, what is not covered by the more specialised sections |
The Leica Camera Forum is the biggest Leica community worldwide.
Please register, if you want to use all features of the Leica Forum!
![]() |
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 10/26/07
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 205
|
Is there any significant difference in the image making capabilities of the 180 3.4 Apo vs the 180 2.8 second version (non-Apo without the tripod mount)? The closer focusing capabilities of the latter make me strongly inclined to opt for it in favor of the Apo.
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 09/18/06
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 219
|
They are both excellent lenses, but at the larger f stops the Apo version is superior. In all fairness, I have only compared the 1st version of the 2.8/180 and the 3.4, and the superior quality of the 3,4 was quite apparent,
I know that the 3.4 is optimised for infinify, but I used mine also with the macro adapter (actually an old one made for the 2.8/60) and even at closer distances this lens is razor sharp. That being said, the 2.8/180 is no bad lens eihter. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 10/26/07
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 205
|
Thanks, Ivar. This is exactly the kind of information I'm looking for. It's hard to tell the difference between two lenses from just looking at them through the viewfinder inside the camera shop.
My only question is whether the second version 2.8 had any significant optical improvements over the first version that would make its wide-open performance close to that of the Apo. The difference in speed is too small to matter, so that's not even an issue. I'm concerned with image quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 07/16/06
Posts: 155
|
I own the 180/2,8 second version. The optical performance is excellent, specially wide-open. This lens is very suitable for theatre and concert photographing.
It has the bokeh of the Elmarit-R 2,8/ 35, the Macro-Elmarit 2,8/60 and the Elmarit 2.8 /135 The Elmarit 180/2,8 is excellent for portrait photograpy. The Apo 3,4/180 is rather too sharp for that kind of work, I find personally, but also an excellent lens! |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) | |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 09/17/06
Posts: 143
|
Quote:
Is that version 1 or 2 of the 35 Elmarit? Thomas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Benutzer
Join Date: 02/22/07
Posts: 44
|
Many years ago I asked a knowledgeable leica rep. about the differences between the ver. 2, as compared to the ver. 1. His response was, "leica did a wonderful design for the version 2, it retains all the performance of the version 1, and is 400 grams lighter" !!
So optically, no real improvement......the ver. 1 is excellent. The Apo-telyt though is a much higher resolution lens, reaching almost 300 LP/MM at its best F stop......5.6. Even today that type of performance is rare, and very expensive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 05/04/06
Posts: 481
|
I have owned and used both these lens since they were new to the Leica catalog. The APO 3.4 is an exceptional lens even by todays standards. At infinity it is equal to the latest 180APO. It renders with a brilliance that is only found in the very best optics. It is light and has a very long throw( fine but slow focusing). Not quite as sharp at closer distances. RobSteve did an excellent test of the 3.4apo against the latest apo2.8 and preferred the 3.4 version(but they were close). The 180 2.8 V2 is an excellent lens but not in the same league as the 3.4 (based on my experience). So why have both or pick the 2.8 V2.....its for the close and quick focusing. The 180 2.8 V2 excels in portraits and anyplace where rapid accurate focus is important. I used my 180 V2 for tennis and the apo 3.4 would not perform there. The newer and much more expensive 180/2.8 APO performs like the 3.4 but handles even better than the older V2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 10/26/07
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 205
|
Joop, 4X5B&W, and glenerrolrd, thanks for your feedback. As I thought, there are good arguments for owning both lenses. I'm inclined to go with the Apo.
The problem is that the Apo I looked at (marginally less expensive than the mint 2.8) had slightly cloudy rear glass and a smudge on the front glass. It was unclear whether this could be cleaned or would need professional service that would add to the total cost of the lens. I can't really justify buying both. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 09/18/06
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 219
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) | |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 09/17/06
Posts: 143
|
Quote:
Yes, nice size, weight and price too indeed. Googled a gallery and dropped the poster a PM asking which optical version he used. Qualified guess? Leitz Elmarit R 35mm/2.8 | TrekEarth Thomas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 10/26/07
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 205
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
Erfahrener Benutzer
Join Date: 09/09/05
Posts: 533
|
The transition from filters series 7.5 to E60 (with different coating of the front glass element) in somewere in between s.n. 2.8XX.XXX and 3.0XX.XXX; can't be more accurate, sorry for that. May be some other forum member remembers better.
Fernando. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Benutzer
Join Date: 06/08/05
Posts: 58
|
The only difference between the series filter version and the screw-in filter version is that - the filter attachment method. Optically and in all other mechanical respects they are the same.
It is a wonderful lens and with great ergonomics (other than possibly the slow throw of the focusing helix). Highly recommended. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|