Simon Baker Posted March 25, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello all, I will be most grateful of any advice you may have for me with regard to the purchase of an "R" lens in the 180 - 200mm range. I recently purchased a very nice "R" outfit at a very affordable price, it comprises the following:- Black R8 ( late s/n) Black R5 ( late "Leica" logo ) 35 F2.8 Elmarit ( latest ) 50 F2 Summicron ROM 90 F2.8 Elmarit ( latest ) 100 F2.8 APO Macro Elmarit ROM 2x APO ROM I would like to purchase a telephoto in the 180mm range and am prepared to spend up to approx £2K if warranted. I don't mind a prime or a zoom at this focal length, but would like to get it right first time so to speak, so as I see it my possible options are :- 1) 180mm F2.8 latter non APO ( APO too hard to find ) 2) 180mm F3.4 APO 3) 80-200 F4 ROM ( latest ) 4) 105-280 F4.2 ROM 5) 70-180 F2.8 APO Ideally my preferred max aperture would be F2.8 ... in keeping with my primes, however the two slower zooms mentioned would be acceptable if the benefits outweigh the aperture. So as I see it:- 1) A good lens, better and lighter than the earlier version, nice and compact too 2) A highly rated lens, cracking at infinity, less so close up ..... a better choice than 1) ? 3) Owned this a number of years ago so am familiar with it, IMO a very good lens, nice balance and size due to slower max aperture but would it be a better choice than 1) or 2) ? Given I already have 90 & 100 lenses its benefit to me would be at about 135mm onwards. 4) Appears to be highly regarded, good focal range, no overlap with current lenses owned, OK it's on the heavier side but I've lugged a Nikkor 400 F2.8 around which is considerably heavier again 5) A very highly rated lens, similar weight to 4) but shorter focal range however faster max aperture, overlap with my current 90 & 100 lenses but from there up provides new focal lengths for me. Would the wisest choice be to stay with primes and if so which would be the better option .... F2.8 later lens but not APO or the F3.4 APO ? Performance to cost ratio should I forgo F2.8 and get the 80-200 ROM , can buy a nice one for about £600 105-280 ROM would give a nice extended focal length range but would you consider it 70 -180 APO .... difficult to get a 180 APO F2.8 prime .... how does this compare and if this would be your lens of choice - why ? I very much appreciate any suggestions you may have which may help guide me towards narrowing down my choices. Many thanks Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2010 Posted March 25, 2010 Hi Simon Baker, Take a look here H'mmm ... decisions, decisions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SteveYork Posted March 25, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 25, 2010 Purpose????? Travel??? Wildlife???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Baker Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted March 25, 2010 Purpose????? Travel??? Wildlife???? Any and all "short telephoto use" Sometimes useful for portraiture / fashion from a distance, shallow & compressed backgrounds. Some wildlife shots and often isolating scenes within landscapes Whilst weight needs to be considered I would not put it above performance or versatility, Thanks Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.M Posted March 26, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 26, 2010 I am not an R-user , but my choice would be the 70-180 , gives you a wide range of focals and 2.8 and still usable without a tripod . Etienne Michiels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryharwood Posted April 12, 2010 Share #5 Posted April 12, 2010 For what its' worth, I think you would be satisfied completely with the 180 F3.4 APO lens- brought out for the US navy for intelligence prposes, and at a no expense spared funding. I had one of these fabulous lenses, and believe me it was very very good. Small and light, it gave a fabulous image- one that had that all too rare 'Glow'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted April 12, 2010 Share #6 Posted April 12, 2010 See also "adan"'s (Andy Piper's) thread "Leica R telephoto quandary" in the Customer Forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
poynterama Posted April 13, 2010 Share #7 Posted April 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) For what its' worth, I think you would be satisfied completely with the 180 F3.4 APO lens- brought out for the US navy for intelligence prposes, and at a no expense spared funding. I had one of these fabulous lenses, and believe me it was very very good. Small and light, it gave a fabulous image- one that had that all too rare 'Glow'. I agree- I bought a mint example for a song and I love it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted April 13, 2010 Share #8 Posted April 13, 2010 I would rate the 180 APO f/3.4 as the best deal - only very slightly behind the more modern APOs, usually quite a bit cheaper, and only 1/2 stop slower than the f/2.8. Its main drawback is a longer close focus limit, if you are thinking of portraits. It also may not work with your APO 2x (see my thread in customer forum as mentioned) and if it does will become an f/7 lens. Personally I like the 180 f/2.8 pre-APO. As a portrait lens it has some of the "gentleness" of the pre-APO 90 Summicrons at f/2.8 and f/4, while being very close to the APO f/3.4 @ f/5.6-8. The recent 80-200 f/4 lens just didn't impress me much. Even my Leica rep acknowledged it was not as clear and brilliant as the f/2.8 70-180. It was built by Kyocera (the Contax folks) as a cheap alternative to fill out the R line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 13, 2010 Share #9 Posted April 13, 2010 Me too vote for the 180 3,4... never read anything less than enthusiastic about it, and with the 2xAPO extender you have is still an interesting combo. But... as a non-R user I have also the idea that having a reflex, it's a pity not to have zooms... and in this case I'd prefer the 105-280 , simply considering your lens set: there is what can be a serious problem, however, : 1950g vs. 750g for the 180... and length adequate...all another beast to carry around; I think it's also not so easy to find (but Leicashop has one for sale, - 2200 Euros) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Baker Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share #10 Posted April 13, 2010 To all who have replied thus far .... thank you, It is helpful to have your thoughts to guide me. At the moment I am leaning towards going for a late 180 f2.8 non-apo as I would like to use it for some portraiture as well as the usual moderate telephoto stuff. I have not ruled out an F3.4 APO and if one turns up at the right price I will certainly consider it, I have ruled out the two zooms ... the 80-200 has overlap with my 90 & 100 and apparently is best at its mid zoom setting of approx 135mm, I would like "best" at around 180/200 . The 105-280 whilst no doubt a good performer is rather large for general use thus would most likely not be in my bag that often. BTW .... I just purchased a mint & late 24mm ROM for £350 , "R" lenses really are such wonderful value right now ! It is now possible ( with a little luck and patience ) to purchase a nice basic outfit such as 24/35/50/90/SF20 & R8 for less than what the R8 alone cost new. Once again, my thanks to everyone Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted April 13, 2010 Share #11 Posted April 13, 2010 Simon, Hang around a bit longer and you'll find a 180/2.8 APO for sale within your budget. I have the 180/2 summicron which is fabulous but massive; the 180/2.8 APO is a great compromise. Funny that the folks around here aren't impressed with the 80-200/4. I'm very happy with mine considering its price and limitations. A significant number of my gig shots on my website are taken with it (eg Nigel Kennedy, Van Morrison, Hugh Masakela, Squeeze, Billy Joel, Buena Vista Social Club). Best wishes, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Baker Posted April 13, 2010 Author Share #12 Posted April 13, 2010 Simon, Hang around a bit longer and you'll find a 180/2.8 APO for sale within your budget. I have the 180/2 summicron which is fabulous but massive; the 180/2.8 APO is a great compromise. Funny that the folks around here aren't impressed with the 80-200/4. I'm very happy with mine considering its price and limitations. A significant number of my gig shots on my website are taken with it (eg Nigel Kennedy, Van Morrison, Hugh Masakela, Squeeze, Billy Joel, Buena Vista Social Club). Best wishes, Hi Charlie, By that , can I take it you will most likely be advertising one soon ? Kind regards Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted April 13, 2010 Share #13 Posted April 13, 2010 180 3.4 is kind of funky except for infinity. All the weight is on the end so it does not balance well and most take odd filters. 180 4.0 is nice and handy. Price is good on these and is what I have. 180 2.8 is a decent lens and not to big 180 2.8 APO is an outstanding glass, probably the best 180 ever made anywhere. Will cost much money. 105 280 is a big hugh lens. 70/180 is a very good zoom 80/200 4.0 is very good zoom. I have the previous 70/210 ? and it is a credable lens. Think it was made by Kyocera. Not the 75/?, but the model inbetween. It is a push pull single ring Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted April 13, 2010 Share #14 Posted April 13, 2010 Hi Charlie, By that , can I take it you will most likely be advertising one soon ? Kind regards Simon Simon, Er, no! But I have sent you a PM about one for sale. (Oh and I don't think I'll ever sell my 180/2 summicron - it's just a fantastic lens) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted April 14, 2010 Share #15 Posted April 14, 2010 The 180 Apo 3.4 is one of the reasons I got into the R system, and I have not been disappointed. It is retina-searingly sharp. However, infinity is very far away, and as Tobey mentioned, it takes 60mm filters, which are scarcely available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.