Difference between telyt r 250 versions I and II

[Bohns]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I just got an SL body and look for a long focal length for alpine wildlife. I already have an APO Telyt R 180 and will soon recieve an APO extender R 2x. But a 360 mm reach may be limited for some type of animals, and certainly too short for birds. As a consequence, I am envisionning getting a used Telyt R 250 f4, to use it naked and paired with the APO extender.

 

I saw there are 2 versions of it, with differences on filter thread and MFD. My first question is about clarifying if there are other differences in term of optical formula and IQ between both versions, since the longer MFD is not really a concern from the use I plan.

My second question is about pairing it with the extender on a recent digital body.

 

Please do not advise to go for the APO 280 f4. If I had the bucks for it, I would rather buy the VE SL 90-280 instead. I look for a cheap manual solution pending this possible future acquisition.

 

Thanks for your answers,

Stef.

[a.noctilux]

Hello Stef,

 

Compared to Apo-Telyt-R 3.4/180 (even with the apo-ext x2 attached to this nice 180mm), you would have far less quality with each of Tetyt-R 4/250mm.

The change of field of view is minimal 180/250.

 

I had them to use with my R Leica, long time ago but replaced with longer reach 4.8/350mm, 1820g but it's handholdable with shoulder stock or monopod:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/350mm_f/4.8_Telyt-R

 

As side note, it's the same weight as Apo-Telyt-R 4/280 and use same size filter 77mm.

 

Now I use this last fabulous one 4/280 with apo ext x1.4 or x2 if need be and quality stays incredibly high.

 

Some old discussion, here:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16346-advice-required-about-r-lenses/

Edited August 15, 2017 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Steve McGarrett]

I can confirm that R350 is a very nice lens even today, for sure it's not an Apo-Telyt 400 but it's really nice, and it's still (barely) hand-holdable.

 

Never tried it with the 1.4x, however... I should do it sooner or later.

[gvaliquette]

I have the R350, used it with the shoulder stock and cable release on safari with my R9 and was happy with it.  However, I must say that I have not used it at all since I got the amazing APO-Telyt 280 f4.  Even with the APO-Extender 2X, the quality is just incredible!

 

Guy

[Bohns]

Thank you for your participations and answers.

 

After thinking more about it, I decided to firts assess if I can hold correctly a manual focus 360 focal length without stabilization on a 24 mpx digital sensor. If answer to this first question is "yes", I will then evaluate the APS-C crop quality from the SL, which would leave more than 10 mpx and allow a focal equivalent to 540 mm. Pending the result from this second question, I will either stop there and live happy with the APO Telyt-R 180 and APO Extender-R 2x combo, or pursue assessing the acquisition of a longer R focal.

 

More to follow...

 

Regards,

Stef.

[wildlightphoto]

I can confirm that R350 is a very nice lens even today, for sure it's not an Apo-Telyt 400 but it's really nice, and it's still (barely) hand-holdable.

 

Never tried it with the 1.4x, however... I should do it sooner or later.

 

 

The 1.4x APO-Extender-R does not fit on an un-modified 350mm Telyt-R.

 

To be honest I wasn't impressed with the 350.  Its flare resistance is quite good but overall contrast is low and the very long focussing throw, while seemingly good for fine focus, can make focussing quite tedious.  This lens (like the 250mm Telyt-R and many other long lenses of the same era) also exhibits color fringing in out-of-focus areas that can be either unnoticable of quite annoying depending on the circumstances.

 

I purchased the 350 intending it to be a backup for when the 280/4 APO was taking a long vacation at the Solms repair spa but after using the 280, the 350's performance just didn't "wow" me.  Mirrorless cameras such as the SL and the Sony a7 series have allowed me to consider other backup options and I've found that the Canon FD 300mm f/4 L is a cost-effective solution.  It's certainly not a complete replacement for the 280/4 but as a backup and a lower-cost alternative it's quite good.  Note that there is also a non-L version of the Canon FD 300/4 which isn't as satisfying.

 

Getting back to the original question, I've used the second version of the 250/4 R and my impressions of its optical performance are that it's much like the 350/4.8.  I didn't consider the older version 250/4 because its tripod mount is fixed rather than on a rotating collar.

[wagner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Stef!

 

Have a look here:

 

http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-canada-telyt-r-14-250-mm-first-version-new-pics-t65534.html

 

Well, the lens is - as mentioned there as well - , nothing for a pixel counter, but it still produces very nice pictures!

 

Regards,

 

Torsten

[Bohns]

Thank you very much, Wildlightphoto, for your valid advice.

And thank you Torsten for your link which is perfectly feeding my thoughts with some concrete photos !

[Steve McGarrett]

wildlightphoto, on 18 Aug 2017 - 14:02, said:

The 1.4x APO-Extender-R does not fit on an un-modified 350mm Telyt-R.

 

To be honest I wasn't impressed with the 350.  Its flare resistance is quite good but overall contrast is low and the very long focussing throw, while seemingly good for fine focus, can make focussing quite tedious.  This lens (like the 250mm Telyt-R and many other long lenses of the same era) also exhibits color fringing in out-of-focus areas that can be either unnoticable of quite annoying depending on the circumstances.

 

I purchased the 350 intending it to be a backup for when the 280/4 APO was taking a long vacation at the Solms repair spa but after using the 280, the 350's performance just didn't "wow" me.  Mirrorless cameras such as the SL and the Sony a7 series have allowed me to consider other backup options and I've found that the Canon FD 300mm f/4 L is a cost-effective solution.  It's certainly not a complete replacement for the 280/4 but as a backup and a lower-cost alternative it's quite good.  Note that there is also a non-L version of the Canon FD 300/4 which isn't as satisfying.

 

Getting back to the original question, I've used the second version of the 250/4 R and my impressions of its optical performance are that it's much like the 350/4.8.  I didn't consider the older version 250/4 because its tripod mount is fixed rather than on a rotating collar.

 

Yeah, you're right Doug, so there was a reason why I've never tried it on the 350 in all these years after all 

(Today i don't use those lens very often anymore, and my memory has failed me: probably I was mistaken with the 400/6.8 that I had, and its long empty focusing tube...)

 

Regarding optical quality, on the contrary, personally speaking I find the 350 one of the best non-APO long telephoto in R line.

Or perhaps I have a very good sample of 350 and an average one of 280, I don't know...

[wildlightphoto]

... personally speaking I find the 350 one of the best non-APO long telephoto in R line.

 

No disagreement from me.  I probably would have been happier with it if I hadn't already been using the 280/4 APO.