ryee3 Posted August 25, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted August 25, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) What is a good price if I can find one for sale for the 280 mm R f/4? They are hard to find and wonder if they are worth the seemingly increasing costs. Â ryee3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 25, 2012 Share #2  Posted August 25, 2012 What is a good price if I can find one for sale for the 280 mm R f/4? They are hard to find and wonder if they are worth the seemingly increasing costs. ryee3  If you mean the APO-Telyt-R 280mm f/4, that's indeed an extraordinary lens and harder to get. lately I have not seen them offered in excellent condition for less than the $4-5k range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauklis Posted August 25, 2012 Share #3  Posted August 25, 2012 What is a good price if I can find one for sale for the 280 mm R f/4? They are hard to find and wonder if they are worth the seemingly increasing costs. ryee3  I sold my lens (pristine condition) here in the forum market some weeks ago, 2850 EUR, there had only been two requests.  krauklis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 25, 2012 Share #4  Posted August 25, 2012 2850 EUR - Google Search  Amazing how the euro has fallen! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted August 25, 2012 Share #5 Â Posted August 25, 2012 Hello K-H, Â Maybe the Euro has fallen but not the 280/4. It is still a benchmark lens. As it has been since it was 1st released. Â Best Regards, Â Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 25, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted August 25, 2012 Hi Michael, Â Agreed! Earlier this year I acquired a LEICA R 280mm f4 APO TELYT R CAM BOXED with LEICA SOLMS SERVICE WARRANTY. It's an absolutely mind-blowing lens with 500 line pairs per mm resolution, if I remember Puts correctly. I am using the lens on my Sony's NEX-5N and NEX-7 cameras, haven't leitaxed it yet for my Nikon D800E, still hoping for a Leica M10 solution. Â BTW, the NEX-7 is no slouch with 24 MP in APS-C format. An FF camera, like the M9 or D800E, would need to have way in excess of 50 MP to match the resolving power of the NEX-7. Even the APS-C sized NEX-5N with 16 MP matches the pixel density of the D800E's 36 MP. It would be nice indeed if a future (hopefully very soon) M10 with LiveView could match or exceed these parameters and accommodate R-lenses as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted August 27, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted August 27, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I sold mine for Euros 3000 about a year ago - the buyer wanted it for a Canon body. Â This is possibly the best lens ever made for a Leica - although the new 2/50 APO ASPH may change that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted August 27, 2012 Share #8 Â Posted August 27, 2012 Indeed, the lens is a stellar performer most of the time. Â However, as I just found out and described in another thread, the lens doesn't seem to handle very strong point light sources very well and produces ghost images in parts of the photo where there are no light sources when used on the Sony NEX-7 camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 27, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted October 27, 2012 On the Canon 5D I tested (hate that verb) this lens and found no refections. I think it is inherent to the Sony NEX-7. I don't think this is a 280 R APO f4 problem. I just didn't see it. I also didn't see this artifact when I tested the 280 f2.8 APO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 27, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted October 27, 2012 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2172918-post5.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 27, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted October 27, 2012 Here is the google translate of the link you posted. I am sorry that I don't speak German, this doesn't help me understand your post. Sorry. But, it still doesn't support the fact that these artifacts are sensor or camera specific. Thorsten apparently doesn't own the lens. But, he has seen this reflection at the movies? Â This is the google translate: Â "The aforementioned thread I have not read quite that possessed 4/280 I do not, only the 2.8 he. The artifacts mentioned I know some of them already from movie times. The distance reflective light source in the picture, depending on the filter does not use or really only one conclusion: Light from the sensor surface due to the filter and then thrown on the sensor - or on the farther back lens. This used in different films less pronounced, and at various chip brands that will not be any different. "digitally optimized" means yes, many manufacturers especially nowadays: Special compensation of returning lenses. Â But who directly with only 280mm goes to the moon, it is usually select the correct exposure in such short times that much EBV is necessary to make the effects visible. Â The quality of the lens does not diminish! Who therefore be 4/280 not like it, I like to dispose of it properly. Â Would only be interesting to see how this beats the 5.6 / 1200 Â CLEAR SKIES Â Torsten" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 27, 2012 Share #12  Posted October 27, 2012 Here is my translation attempt:  Den erwähnten Thread habe ich nicht ganz gelesen, das 4/280 besitze ich nicht, nur das 2,8er. I didn't read the mentioned thread in its entirety, I don't own the 4/280, only the 2.8er.  Die erwähnten Artefakte kenne ich zum Teil schon aus Film-Zeiten.  The mentioned artifacts I already know in part from film days.  Der Abstand Reflex-Lichtquelle auf dem Bild je nach Filternutzung oder nicht lässt eigentlich nur einen Schluß zu:  The distance reflex-light source on the picture, depending on filter use or not, in principle only permits one conclusion:  Licht wird von der Sensor-Oberfläche zurück auf das Filter und wieder auf den Sensor geworfen - oder eben auf die weiter entfernte Rücklinse.  Light is being reflected from the sensor-surface back onto the filter and again onto the sensor - or onto the more distant back-lens.  Das war früher bei unterschiedlichen Filmen unterschiedlich stark ausgeprägt, und bei verschiedenen Chip-Fabrikaten wird das auch nicht anders sein.  In the past for different films that was differently strong pronounced (visible) and with different kind of chips it won't be any different.  "digital optimiert" heißt ja bei vielen Herstellern heutzutage vor allem: Besondere Vergütung der Rücklinsen.  "Digitally optimized" for many manufacturers these days implies mostly: special coating for the back-lenses.  Aber: Wer mit nur 280mm direkt auf den Mond geht, muss üblicherweise für eine korrekte Belichtung derart kurze Zeiten wählen, dass schon viel EBV notwendig ist, um die Effekte sichtbar zu machen.  But: Whoever is using only a 280mm directly for the moon, typically must choose for a correct exposure such short times that a lot of EBV is required to make the effects visible.  Der Qualität der Linse tut das keinen Abbruch!  That doesn't diminish the quality of the lens!  Wer deswegen sein 4/280 nicht mehr mag, ich entsorge es gerne fachgerecht.  Whoever for this reason doesn't like his 4/280 anymore, I will gladly dispose of it properly.  Wäre nur interessant, wie sich hier das 5,6/1200 schlägt  Would be only interesting, how here the 5.6/1200 performs  CLEAR SKIES  Torsten   So my take is Torsten observed reflections also with film cameras and presumably a 2.8/280. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 27, 2012 Share #13  Posted October 27, 2012 (…) the lens doesn't seem to handle very strong point light sources very well and produces ghost images in parts of the photo where there are no light sources when used on the Sony NEX-7 camera. Could you show us your pics please? Did you use an additional filter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 27, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted October 27, 2012 Could you show us your pics please? Did you use an additional filter? Â Â http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/252227-leica-serie-5-5-ndx1-13026-a.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 27, 2012 Share #15 Â Posted October 27, 2012 Thanks. You don't use an additional filter i guess, which is not recommended by Leica. Did you try to remove the internal filter? Never did it on my 280/4 but i've lost that of my Nikon 300/4 and i don't miss it i must say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 27, 2012 Share #16 Â Posted October 27, 2012 Thanks. You don't use an additional filter i guess, which is not recommended by Leica. Did you try to remove the internal filter? Never did it on my 280/4 but i've lost that of my Nikon 300/4 and i don't miss it i must say. Â Â It's all explained in that relatively long thread. Yes, I did all those cases. Â Â What do you think? Is there something wrong with my lens and I should send it in to Leica? It's still under warranty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 27, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted October 27, 2012 I would send your pics to Leica and ask them for an advice in the first place. They will probably suggest to send them the lens in though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.