MarkP Posted September 14, 2014 Share #61 Posted September 14, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Keep a look out. They come up from time to time when some poor misguided soul like Jaap makes a rare mistake. (It won't be me though. It's irreplaceable.) Once can only hope Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Hi MarkP, Take a look here Leica R APO Telyt 180/3.4 vs. Leica R 80-200 F4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted September 14, 2014 Share #62 Posted September 14, 2014 Once can only hope You could borrow mine though Mark because I know you'd look after it. Pop in and pick it up. I'm in tomorrow evening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 14, 2014 Share #63 Posted September 14, 2014 You could borrow mine though Mark because I know you'd look after it. Pop in and pick it up. I'm in tomorrow evening. See you then . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted September 24, 2014 Share #64 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) I'm considering purchase of either the 80-200/4 R or the 105-280/4.2 R. All opinions in this thread about the 80-200/4 are positive - thus seems to be worth considering. However, I'm aware it was manufactured by Kyocera and some opinions on other forums suggest that there might have been manufacturing QA issues - thus some examples' performances have been below expectations. Have any forum members experienced lower than expected performance from their 80-200/4 lens ? Regarding the 105-280/4.2, so far I cannot find a full specification listed but note that there are two strap lugs on the lens. Was a dedicated strap included as part of the OEM package? Both lenses date from 1996 so are 'getting on a bit' age-wise and being zooms might be subject to wear. Has anyone noticed any sloppiness or stiffness in the focusing or zoom action in older well used examples compared to when the lenses were new? Is the build quality of the 105-280/4.2 better than that of the 80-200/4? Advice also appreciated regarding any other possible anomalies to watch out for. I'm aware of the weight differences; lens required for use with my R9/DMR. Regards dunk Edited September 24, 2014 by dkpeterborough Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2014 Share #65 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) All three lenses ( I have (had) them all) have impeccable build quality. Nor is there any complaint about image quality. The zooms have my preference for versatility and the image output is as good as any prime lens you care to name. The 105-280 is my premier lens for wildlife, often with the 1.4x apoextender added. I used to have the 280/4.0 apo, but I am hard put to see any difference between the two. I sold the 180/3.4 after purchasing the 80-200 as it lost its function in my kit. About the 80-200: The focus ring follower can work loose over time. It is a simple repair, unless, like on my example, it is the first lens of the morning and the fixing glue is applied with a freshly dipped and liberal brush. I had to send mine to Leica to unscrew and fix. (300 Euro) The lens is considerably better than the 70-200 offerings by Canon, for instance. (another lens I used a lot in the past) It only takes the 2x apoextender. About the 105-280 There is no dedicated strap. I do not really use the lugs, as the whole gear hangs from my side by the diagonal strap from Sun Sniper screwed into the tripod bush of the lens. Ideal for walking around and using handheld. Just grab and raise to eye. I often add a handgrip to the camera tripod screw too for maximum stability. (an ancient Japanese one meant for medium format) Either that or a chest pod. The zoom and focus rings are not as smooth as for instance the focus ring of the 280. I even returned mine to Leica for a notchy zoom ring, but got it back with the note "Konstruktionsbedingt". The optimal focal length is 200 mm. Not to say that the falloff to other focal lengths is significant, you would not notice unless pixelpeeping. I think I can safely say neither lens has ever been surpassed by any other in the same focal length. Edited September 24, 2014 by jaapv 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 24, 2014 Share #66 Posted September 24, 2014 I'm considering purchase of either the 80-200/4 R or the 105-280/4.2 R. Both lenses date from 1996 so are 'getting on a bit' age-wise and being zooms might be subject to wear. Has anyone noticed any sloppiness or stiffness in the focusing or zoom action in older well used examples compared to when the lenses were new? Is the build quality of the 105-280/4.2 better than that of the 80-200/4? The 80-200/4 I had was purchased in well-used condition so I cannot compare with new, but there was some fore-aft play in the focussing mechanism. If this degraded the optical performance I never noticed it. Other than this the lens was clearly built to Leica-R standards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 24, 2014 Share #67 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) The 105-280 is my premier lens for wildlife, often with the 1.4x apoextender added.I used to have the 280/4.0 apo, but I am hard put to see any difference between the two. I did see a difference. About the 105-280 There is no dedicated strap. I do not really use the lugs, as the whole gear hangs from my side by the diagonal strap from Sun Sniper screwed into the tripod bush of the lens. Ideal for walking around and using handheld. Just grab and raise to eye. I often add a handgrip to the camera tripod screw too for maximum stability. (an ancient Japanese one meant for medium format) Either that or a chest pod. The zoom and focus rings are not as smooth as for instance the focus ring of the 280. I even returned mine to Leica for a notchy zoom ring, but got it back with the note "Konstruktionsbedingt". The optimal focal length is 200 mm. Not to say that the falloff to other focal lengths is significant, you would not notice unless pixelpeeping. I think I can safely say neither lens has ever been surpassed by any other in the same focal length. The 105-280 I borrowed was mounted on my shoulder stock/monopod rig and IMHO in this configuration the handing is superb, with ideal placement and spacing of the zoom & focus rings such that I could support the lens with my left hand at the tripod mount and just by moving my thumb forward or back I could easily fine-tune the focus and focal length with light thumb pressure. There's just one huge problem with this lens though [180mm f/3.4 APO]: once you get into apochromatic lenses, there ain't no coming back. This has been my experience too. Edited September 24, 2014 by wildlightphoto 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 24, 2014 Share #68 Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) I did not say there was no difference, Doug, I said the difference was very small, small enough in any case for me to prefer the flexibility of the zoom lens. I am often handicapped by an non-changeable camera position. Yes, a monopod rig is great too. I have a combined walking stick/monopod that I like to use. Edited September 24, 2014 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shac Posted September 24, 2014 Share #69 Posted September 24, 2014 I'm considering purchase of either the 80-200/4 R or the 105-280/4.2 R. All opinions in this thread about the 80-200/4 are positive - thus seems to be worth considering. However, I'm aware it was manufactured by Kyocera and some opinions on other forums suggest that there might have been manufacturing QA issues - thus some examples' performances have been below expectations. Have any forum members experienced lower than expected performance from their 80-200/4 lens ? ...............Has anyone noticed any sloppiness or stiffness in the focusing or zoom action in older well used examples compared to when the lenses were new? dunk I have the 80-200/4 and have noticed no problems - neither mechanical nor optical - it was in excellent condition when I bought it last year. I also have the 35-70/4 another Kyocera build I beleive and it too is excellent in both IQ and build Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted September 24, 2014 Share #70 Posted September 24, 2014 Would the Leica STA-1 collar fit perhaps? Pete. The STA-1 fits the 180mm f/2.8 APO. IMHO it might not be optimum because the knob for tightening the collar is on the right side where it's too close to the camera's grip to tighten it easily and it doesn't rotate smoothly when loosened (this on the DMR; if the camera does not have a grip it might be easier). I could not turn the STA-1 around to put the knob on the left side because the foot interfered with the DMR; this might not be an issue at all when using the lens on the M(240). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 11, 2014 Share #71 Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) Well my beautiful late production 3.4/180mm APO-Telyt-R arrived . It looked absolutely mint/unused, front & rear glass surfaces pristine. Then I shone a light through the back of the lens to check the internal elements . Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The back of the front element or the next one back had multiple deep scratches and a large crescent of fogging to the left (the out of focus light reflections off the external surface of the front element confirm these are internal) So panic sets in until I communicate with the seller, send him the photos, and the refund was in my PayPal account within 24hrs . He was incredibly apologetic and was quite perplexed as to how this happened as he said he had never had the lens serviced. This is the only time I've ever had a problem with a non-dealer lens purchase. In the end it all went very smoothly albeit somewhat disappointing. I did test the lens. As expected it flared badly in bright light. But in less challenging light, considering the expected loss of IQ with both the fogging and extensive scratching, I was still very impressed with it's performance. I can only imagine what the results would be with a lens with clean optics. However, I've taken the opportunity to again consider the 80-200 vs the 180 APO-Telyt. I've decided I can't justify the price of the 2.8/180 for a less-commonly used focal length and from what I understand there's little difference with the 180 APO-Telyt in performance at 5.6 (see Puts) although I suspect colour and OOF areas will be different. So I'm back to variable FL and weight/size as considerations, and the half-stop will make some difference to DOF for subject separation. I'll probably go with the 180 APO-Telyt as it is relatively light & compact . Edited October 11, 2014 by MarkP 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The back of the front element or the next one back had multiple deep scratches and a large crescent of fogging to the left (the out of focus light reflections off the external surface of the front element confirm these are internal) So panic sets in until I communicate with the seller, send him the photos, and the refund was in my PayPal account within 24hrs . He was incredibly apologetic and was quite perplexed as to how this happened as he said he had never had the lens serviced. This is the only time I've ever had a problem with a non-dealer lens purchase. In the end it all went very smoothly albeit somewhat disappointing. I did test the lens. As expected it flared badly in bright light. But in less challenging light, considering the expected loss of IQ with both the fogging and extensive scratching, I was still very impressed with it's performance. I can only imagine what the results would be with a lens with clean optics. However, I've taken the opportunity to again consider the 80-200 vs the 180 APO-Telyt. I've decided I can't justify the price of the 2.8/180 for a less-commonly used focal length and from what I understand there's little difference with the 180 APO-Telyt in performance at 5.6 (see Puts) although I suspect colour and OOF areas will be different. So I'm back to variable FL and weight/size as considerations, and the half-stop will make some difference to DOF for subject separation. I'll probably go with the 180 APO-Telyt as it is relatively light & compact . ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/220952-leica-r-apo-telyt-18034-vs-leica-r-80-200-f4/?do=findComment&comment=2687076'>More sharing options...
Shac Posted October 12, 2014 Share #72 Posted October 12, 2014 Would the Leica STA-1 collar fit perhaps? Pete. Following up on Doug's comment - I use a Chinese version of the Canon tripod mount on my 80-200/4 - works very well and the knob Doug refers to is on the left side as you stand behind the camera. All I had to do was remove the red dot - but this didn't affect IQ:D. Also I smoothed off the inside edges of the "Canon" mount to allow a smoother rotation. B&H sells another variant of this mount that might be better made http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822975-REG/Vello_TC_AB_Tripod_Collar_A_Black.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 6, 2015 Share #73 Posted February 6, 2015 So I have the 75-200mm f4.5 (made by Minolta) that came in a package with an R3. I shot a bit with it on my Sony NEX-6 at Christmas. Don't love it, but I don't hate. I felt like it wasn't as sharp as my M lenses and the bokeh was a bit rough. Would I see a big improvement if I switched to the newer 80-200 f4 ROM? In theory I'd really like to just get the 280mm f2.8 APO and 2x converter, but in reality I don't think my back can actually handle lugging one of those around on a hike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted February 6, 2015 Share #74 Posted February 6, 2015 So I have the 75-200mm f4.5 (made by Minolta) ... Would I see a big improvement if I switched to the newer 80-200 f4 ROM? I didn't compare sharpness directly so I won't comment on that, but bokeh is much much better with the 80-200 f/4, ROM or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markstade Posted February 7, 2015 Share #75 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) "The back of the front element or the next one back had multiple deep scratches and a large crescent of fogging to the left (the out of focus light reflections off the external surface of the front element confirm these are internal) So panic sets in until I communicate with the seller, send him the photos, and the refund was in my PayPal account within 24hrs . He was incredibly apologetic and was quite perplexed as to how this happened as he said he had never had the lens serviced." I had similar Experiences with a 2.8 280mm! Those scratches can only happen during production, or someone tried to clean the very sensible glass by themselves to avoid the Leica bill. What a horror! Difficult to understand! After a necessary service (completely misaligned, made me believe the lens was taken apart), the lens was very good! I did not keep it, because I worried about problems when reselling and also the lens has no good handling because no Handle! A 6 kg 400mm Modul is better to handle, because can be taken easily with one Hand "I can only imagine what the results would be with a lens with clean optics." Probably not much or even nothing. Edited February 7, 2015 by Markstade was einfügen 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 8, 2015 Share #76 Posted February 8, 2015 What's the story on the Angeniux R lenses. Were they any good at all? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted February 8, 2015 Share #77 Posted February 8, 2015 What's the story on the Angeniux R lenses. Were they any good at all? Some were excellent, Few test pictures for French made Angeniux 70-210/3.5 Angenieux 180/2.3 APO - FM Forums Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 8, 2015 Share #78 Posted February 8, 2015 I had similar Experiences with a 2.8 280mm! Those scratches can only happen during production, or someone tried to clean the very sensible glass by themselves to avoid the Leica bill. What a horror! Difficult to understand! After a necessary service (completely misaligned, made me believe the lens was taken apart), the lens was very good! I did not keep it, because I worried about problems when reselling and also the lens has no good handling because no Handle! A 6 kg 400mm Modul is better to handle, because can be taken easily with one Hand I too had assumed that the lens was subjected to an abusive service & clean . Even though the seller did give me the option of a significant discount it was of no use to me as a new element would not be available for such an old lens. "I can only imagine what the results would be with a lens with clean optics." Probably not much or even nothing. I disagree. These were not minor abrasions but extensive deep scratches with associated fogging of the element. The lens performance would no doubt be far better without the lens element scratches as it was unusable due to flare even in even normal daylight, even around any bright areas in the image. Unfortunately I could only assess it in muted light. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 17, 2015 Share #79 Posted February 17, 2015 This 80-200 has been on eBay for a while now claiming only a "small scratch" on the front element. How much would this affect the image? Any idea? Leica Vario Elmar R 80 200mm F 4 0 ROM Lens | eBay Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted February 17, 2015 Share #80 Posted February 17, 2015 Hi Fred, I wouldn't have called them "small" scratches and it's quite a few scratches across the centre of the lens element that appear to have gone through the coating. I would definitely expect the scratches to cause flare in strong light but it's difficult to know whether the scratches would show up as artifacts in its images without some test shots. The price looks reasonable and since it's been sitting on ebay for a while you might be able to use the condition of the front element to bargain the seller down to a level that would allow you to send the lens for recoated (if you can find anyone able to do it). I would also be concerned that if the front element has sustained that level of damage (caused by more than one incident in my opinion) then the way it's been (mis-?)handled may have caused other unseen issues; for example the buyer states "Focus is smooth with a slight tick at 6 feet." which could indicate internal damage. Perhaps buy yourself a lottery ticket when/if you buy it and hope you get lucky with one of them. Pete. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.