Jump to content

Leica R APO Telyt 180/3.4 vs. Leica R 80-200 F4


smartbox

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am building a lens kit for landscape photography and I am trying to decide between the two mentioned telephoto lenses. I currently have the 35-70 Vario-Elmar. My thoughts so far.

 

I really like the 180 for its superior infinity APO performance, accurate infinity focus and lighter weight for backpacking in comparison to the 80-200. Close subject performance with this lens is not an issue for me. I have read that this lens is not as contrasty as other options however has very nice resolution and no CA.

 

I like the 80-200 f4 for its range flexibility and wide open performance. I am concerned about what some people have mentioned with regard to performance from 135-200. This lens is heavier than the 180 however I would be fine with that if performance is close to the 180 in the comparable range.

 

I would appreciate any advice or thoughts regarding these two lenses. Also, let me know if I should consider any other options.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered the 180 APO 2.8? I'm very impressed with mine although I would might well have bought a 3.4 if the right deal came along given the price differential.

 

For either 180 APO you'll also be able to use the Leica 2x APO extender which will give you a very sharp 360 as well.

Edited by woorob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered the 180 APO 2.8? I'm very impressed with mine although I would might well have bought a 3.4 if the right deal came along given the price differential.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

I did consider the 180 APO 2.8. My goal with this lens is landscape subjects at infinity. I have read on multiple forums that the 3.4 compares very favorably with the APO at infinity. My thought was to save a little money and weight via the 3.4 route. The APO and the zoom are very close in weight however with the price difference and zoom flexibility I would rather go with the 80-200 vs. the APO.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own all lenses we are discussing and for your needs go for the more versatile 80-200. Keep in mind you might have a landscape scene that is short of infinity at some point and the 180/3.4 images could suffer then, not to mention it missing the zoom capabilities of the longer and shorter reach 80-200.

 

Then you have 35-200 and everything in between with just 2 R lenses. I also own the 70-180 APO and the 80-200 is one good lens for the price which is about one third the current going price for the 70-180.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own all lenses we are discussing and for your needs go for the more versatile 80-200. Keep in mind you might have a landscape scene that is short of infinity at some point and the 180/3.4 images could suffer then, not to mention it missing the zoom capabilities of the longer and shorter reach 80-200.

 

Good point. There is that occasional scene where the 180/3.4 might struggle. The flexibility of the zoom is very handy for sure. In my your opinion, do I lose that much in the 180 range when comparing the 180/3.4 and the zoom? What optical qualities are lacking/different with the zoom? ex: Sharpness, CA, resolution, character, Leica glow, etc.

 

Then you have 35-200 and everything in between with just 2 R lenses. I also own the 70-180 APO and the 80-200 is one good lens for the price which is about one third the current going price for the 70-180.

 

 

With the zoom, 35-200 certainly covers my most used range. From f4-f11 how would you describe the optical differences between the 80-200 and the 70-180? Same items - Sharpness, CA, resolution, character, Leica glow, etc.

 

Thanks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good point. There is that occasional scene where the 180/3.4 might struggle. The flexibility of the zoom is very handy for sure. In my your opinion, do I lose that much in the 180 range when comparing the 180/3.4 and the zoom? What optical qualities are lacking/different with the zoom? ex: Sharpness, CA, resolution, character, Leica glow, etc.

 

For me you are loosing nothing, just gaining in about any category, but gaining since I often use my lenses closer than infinity and the 180/3.4 has less character IMHO than the 80-200. I posted some 80-200 pixs under the R lenses on M thread started by Jaap. If you post and do most on line then you can use as P&S, but if you print up to 24x36 and occasionally larger then get the best you can afford is my opinion. Your original question was about the 80-200 versus the 180/3.4.

 

With the zoom, 35-200 certainly covers my most used range. From f4-f11 how would you describe the optical differences between the 80-200 and the 70-180? Same items - Sharpness, CA, resolution, character, Leica glow, etc.

 

Thanks

 

The APO70-180 is IMHO again better than just about any R except for maybe the 280/4 in the tele range. That said I very much like the APO 180/2.8, but they are expensive nowadays and are just one FL. The 105-280 has much less sharpness from my experience than the APO 70-180. Of course the 70-180 costs 2 times the 105-280 which costs 50% more than the 80-200. You get what you pay for, but since we all have budgets the money spent on the 80-200 will give you better overall images with much more flexibility in shooting than the APO180/3.4. After all isn't that what it's it all about, ease of image capture.

 

I tend to look at sharpness more than anything else. All the rest tends to fall in place for me after I achieve sharpness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The APO70-180 is IMHO again better than just about any R except for maybe the 280/4 in the tele range. That said I very much like the APO 180/2.8, but they are expensive nowadays and are just one FL. The 105-280 has much less sharpness from my experience than the APO 70-180. Of course the 70-180 costs 2 times the 105-280 which costs 50% more than the 80-200. You get what you pay for, but since we all have budgets the money spent on the 80-200 will give you better overall images with much more flexibility in shooting than the APO180/3.4. After all isn't that what it's it all about, ease of image capture.

 

I tend to look at sharpness more than anything else. All the rest tends to fall in place for me after I achieve sharpness.

 

algrove,

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your insight has been very helpful. When considering "budget" and "ease of image capture" the 80-200 seems to be the best fit at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much for you now that you've made your decision, but for anyone else using this to help them : there is one huge advantage that the 180 3.4 APO has which is that it is tiny for a lens of this specification and ability, and is capable of quite stunning results. It fits in the same little bag that I use for normal M lenses, and that makes it very attractive and practical for me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much for you now that you've made your decision, but for anyone else using this to help them : there is one huge advantage that the 180 3.4 APO has which is that it is tiny for a lens of this specification and ability, and is capable of quite stunning results. It fits in the same little bag that I use for normal M lenses, and that makes it very attractive and practical for me.

 

It was this very point you have articulated that made my decision between the two lenses so difficult. As a backpacker you want the lightest kit possible. I made the decision to purchase the 80-200 now, due to the zoom flexibility and optical character and I will purchase the 180 3.4 APO at a later date for my backpacking needs.

 

I am also quite taken by how much the value of these lenses has been going up. I have been watching the prices of the 80-200 for over a year. It was common to see this lens under $1000. Now you will be lucky to find one in good shape south of $1400. The 180 3.4 APO has gone up in value as well but not to the same extent. There does seem to be more 180's for sale on the open market at this time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I have just ordered an 80-200 Vario-Elmar for my M240. I realize the 240 is a pretty solid beast,and I have the RRS base plate for it, but the thought of all that weight hanging off the body when it's on a tripod makes me a bit uncomfortable. Is there some sort of aftermarket tripod collar that would fit the lens?

 

Thanks,

 

Merrill

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 105-280 has much less sharpness from my experience than the APO 70-180.
You must have had a defective lens. The results of this lens are difficult to distinguish from the 280 4.0 apo.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just ordered an 80-200 Vario-Elmar for my M240. I realize the 240 is a pretty solid beast,and I have the RRS base plate for it, but the thought of all that weight hanging off the body when it's on a tripod makes me a bit uncomfortable. Is there some sort of aftermarket tripod collar that would fit the lens?

Merrill,

 

The Leica M to R adaptor comes with a tripod foot so the only weight hanging off the M would be its own. Leica once produced the STA-1 tripod collar but I don't think it fits onto the 80-200 Vario-Elmar-R without removing its red dot - it certainly doesn't on mine - but if your red dot isn't sacred to you … ;)

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...