Jump to content

Leica Telephotos (portable, low profile)


michaelbrenner

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If you're curious here's a size comparison of the 80-200. 180 lanthar and 90 cron. Note they have extra length due to adapters for the M. Minimum focus distance is 1.1m/1.2m/1m respectively.

 

I would also like to recommend the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180. At infinity I can't tell the difference from shots taken with the Telyt f/3.4, and of course it focusses a LOT closer and performs much better at close range, and is also a lot smaller. Note that as opposed to the 80-200 the focussing is traditional; i.e., non-internal. That means that at the shortest shooting distance of 1.2m, it is still a 180mm lens, while the 80-200 at a nominal 200mm and 1.1m is a fair bit shorter focal length and can't frame as tightly. (Internal focussing works by shortening the focal length to achieve shorter than infinity focussing distances, for the most part).

 

The only lens I would consider over the Voigtlander is the APO-Elmarit, but I'm not willing to spend that much money on something I use rarely, and the one stop advantage comes at a huge cost in size and weight as well.

 

Henning

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren´t there Elpros for this lens?

With an Elpro the lens "thinks" it is at infinity, while it is at 1.5 meter for instance.

Could deliver a better result than an extension ring.

Jan

 

There are no Elpros for the 180mm APO-Telyt. Nikon made the similar 5T and 6T lenses; you'd need to get a step-up ring to 62mm to use these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to recommend the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180. At infinity I can't tell the difference from shots taken with the Telyt f/3.4, and of course it focusses a LOT closer and performs much better at close range, and is also a lot smaller. Note that as opposed to the 80-200 the focussing is traditional; i.e., non-internal. That means that at the shortest shooting distance of 1.2m, it is still a 180mm lens, while the 80-200 at a nominal 200mm and 1.1m is a fair bit shorter focal length and can't frame as tightly. (Internal focussing works by shortening the focal length to achieve shorter than infinity focussing distances, for the most part).

 

The only lens I would consider over the Voigtlander is the APO-Elmarit, but I'm not willing to spend that much money on something I use rarely, and the one stop advantage comes at a huge cost in size and weight as well.

 

Henning

The Apo-Lanthar is indeed a more than excellent and compact lens. There are two problems, however. It is more expensive than the Apo-Telyt and most of them are in Nikon mount, meaning (for many R-lens users) the purchaseof an extra adapter, adding to the cost.

It has a different colour signature as well, but that can be compensated in Photoshop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Apo-Lanthar is indeed a more than excellent and compact lens. There are two problems, however. It is more expensive than the Apo-Telyt and most of them are in Nikon mount, meaning (for many R-lens users) the purchaseof an extra adapter, adding to the cost.

It has a different colour signature as well, but that can be compensated in Photoshop.

 

Mine is in the Pentax M42 mount, which I find eminently versatile. As for cost, when I bought mine (mint, used) it was less than the Apo-Telyt. On the other hand, I find it to be of higher value as it is a lot shorter, lighter, and both focusses closer and is of higher performance than the Apo-Telyt at closer distances.

 

As for colour, I find myself in agreement with the posters in this discussion:

APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4 vs. APO-Lanthar 180/4

that the Apo-Telyt shows a green cast, while the Apo-Lanthar is cleaner.

 

Henning

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine is in the Pentax M42 mount, which I find eminently versatile. As for cost, when I bought mine (mint, used) it was less than the Apo-Telyt. On the other hand, I find it to be of higher value as it is a lot shorter, lighter, and both focusses closer and is of higher performance than the Apo-Telyt at closer distances.

 

As for colour, I find myself in agreement with the posters in this discussion:

APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4 vs. APO-Lanthar 180/4

that the Apo-Telyt shows a green cast, while the Apo-Lanthar is cleaner.

 

Henning

 

good review, except the links to the comparison pics appear to be broken... bummer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno. Tried 1804.0 Flex lens with APO Double Extender. Found it large, slow, heavy and difficult to take rapid, sharp images.

 

So, after sticking with Tele Elmar 4.0 for 15 years, got 135 APO. This way easier to focus, lighter and smaller than 180 lens and great results. Yes may have to crop however amount of crop needed for 180 equivalent is worth it to me.

 

In sum, the M (240) has got me using 135 a lot more than before and extended the usable M lens range as now go from 18 to 135 without adapters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A very short tele is the MR-Telyt-R 500mm. Especially if one uses the lens on a crop camera, then 750mm. A mirror lens with the f/stop 8 (but in reality 9).

 

The lens is mentioned in the forum as not super sharp.

Here an example at 1/800 (electronic shutter) and tripod. Distance to the bird nest 30 meters.

Jan

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=489407&stc=1&d=1426698270

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe with this mirror lens is not lack of sharpness, but lack of resolution. I get more detail in a crop of nearly any other long lens - that and the mirror-lens bokeh...:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried 180 APO Lanthar on M240 for past one week and very happy with in now. This is sharper than 80-200 Vario in the corners and weighs nothing in comparison. I can carry it in my jacket pocket easily too. :)

 

BTW, saw that Ming Thein did a review (very positive) of this lens too last week. He uses it on Nikon D810.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe with this mirror lens is not lack of sharpness, but lack of resolution. I get more detail in a crop of nearly any other long lens - that and the mirror-lens bokeh...:mad:

 

Jaap

I used the lens for solar eclipses mainly. Then there is neither fore- nor background.

But there are photographers, who have published nice work with the - agreed - not so very easy bokeh.

 

Do you still have the technical data of the lens? The MTF curves would interest me.

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe with this mirror lens is not lack of sharpness, but lack of resolution. I get more detail in a crop of nearly any other long lens - that and the mirror-lens bokeh...:mad:

 

A used Tamron SP 500/8 is a great performer, light, compact, and inexpensive.

The donut-bokeh can be fixed in many cases with some postprocessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...