180 3.4 Apo vs 180 2.8 2nd version

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

[Ivar B]

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.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[JBA]

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.

[Joop van Heijgen]

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!

[thomasl.se]

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

Re: 60 Elmarit bokeh,

Is that version 1 or 2 of the 35 Elmarit?

 

Thomas

[4X5B&W]

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.

[glenerrolrd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

[Joop van Heijgen]

Re: 60 Elmarit bokeh,

Is that version 1 or 2 of the 35 Elmarit?

 

Thomas

 

The latest version of the Elmarit-R 2,8/35 with built in hood.

 

An excellent lens, very small and light and at the moment very cheap to purchase:)

[JBA]

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.

[Ivar B]

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.

 

As has already been pointed out by another member, I believe the only real dfference between the 1st and the 2nd version of the 2.8/180 is weight - optically they are more or less identical. The 3.4/180 also had minor alterations and the filter thread was changed from Series 7.5 to E60.

[thomasl.se]

The latest version of the Elmarit-R 2,8/35 with built in hood.

 

An excellent lens, very small and light and at the moment very cheap to purchase:)

Thanks Joop.

 

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

[JBA]

As has already been pointed out by another member, I believe the only real dfference between the 1st and the 2nd version of the 2.8/180 is weight - optically they are more or less identical. The 3.4/180 also had minor alterations and the filter thread was changed from Series 7.5 to E60.

 

Any information about serial numbers for the different versions of the 3.4?

[fernando_b]

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.

[john_newell]

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.

[JBA]

Thanks everybody for your input. Today I picked up a near-mint 180 Apo-Telyt for a very good price. It is fitted with an E60 filter.

 

Thanks for your help.

[Ornello]

On 7/21/2008 at 1:02 PM, Ivar B said:

 

As has already been pointed out by another member, I believe the only real dfference between the 1st and the 2nd version of the 2.8/180 is weight - optically they are more or less identical. The 3.4/180 also had minor alterations and the filter thread was changed from Series 7.5 to E60.

Having owned both versions, I can only say that the second is much, much better in all respects!

[PetersPhotoChannel]

LEICA 180mm f3.4 APO-TELYT-R Versions I and II

As to the serial numbers, that mark the switch from version 1 to version 2 the number is said to be 2.947.024 on this website:

https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-apo-telyt-r-180mm-34

There is a text box called “Accessories”, just scrolling down a bit or enter the serial number as a search on that site. On the list with the serial numbers of LEICA lenses the 2.947.024 mentioned above would fall into the year 1978, so I’d recommend to jump to at least to serial number 3.087.001 which marks the entry into 1981. The version 1 was produced until 1980 . . .

Here’s the link to the table of the serial numbers for LEICA lenses:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Serial_Number_Links_for_Leica_Cameras_and_Lenses

The main difference between those two versions seems to be the filter thread, which is 7,5 in the version 1 and 60mm on version two (E60).

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by PetersPhotoChannel
Formatting Header