LEICA APO-ELMARIT-R 2.8/180

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In case this review has not been web-casted here yet - have a look at Stephen Ozcomert's findings with the Leica APO-Elmarit-R 2.8/180mm.

 

[tritentrue]

Even from the perspective of one who has used the lens regularly and frequently over the past several years, this is an interesting and very useful review.  Thank you for sharing the link.

 

I notice in the size comparison shot that the lenses are placed front element down. A Leica service technician once cautioned me sharply against doing this, as it will eventually cause play when changing the direction of the focus ring.

 

The reviewer mentions the weight as 970g.  My copy, a v.1 (11237) modified to accept the 1.4X extender, weighs in at 923g and before the modification was 890g.

 

As far as the well-documented "ninja stars" in the specular highlights, even the much-vaunted 280 f/4 APO can be induced to produce those if stopped down.  My aperture blades still show the configuration at f/4 and f/5.6 since the modification, but the shape does not show up in the specular highlights, which are more subtle since the conversion.

 

My experience with teleconverters mirrors what the reviewer states regarding stopping the lens down a stop.  While one can still see the sharpness in fine details when used wide open with teleconverters, it is clearer--and contrast is noticeably improved--when aperture setting on the lens is at f/4.

 

Finally, I was surprised to see the reviewer's examples of LoCA when shooting shiny metal objects and tree branches.  I don't get LoCA with my copy, not at any aperture, not even shooting shiny metal in bright sunlight, not even when the images are magnified to 400%.

 

For the past six or seven years, this lens has probably been my most-used lens. I much prefer it (with a teleconverter) over my 280 f4 APO.  No lens is perfect, but this one is close.

 

Much credit to the reviewer for a very informative and comprehensive article.

[Steve McGarrett]

Nice review, but I don't see the point in comparing different focal lengths. A 180 should be compared with others 180-200mm, not with a 50 and a 65 macro at different distances.

Same for LoCA... comparisons should be in the same focal range. I'd like to know if a 200/2 Nikon or Canon shows more or less LoCA than the Apo-Elmarit... than one could say that it's (or not) at the level of best modern glasses.

Shorter focal lengths "like CV 65, Otus 55 and the like" mean very little here.

 

Ab absurdo, an Apo-Elmarit 180 is surely sharper in the corners than a SEM 21, but what'd be the point of a test like that? Telephoto lenses are sharper in the corners than wides (of the same era), everybody knows that, so if I wanna know how good is the SEM 21 in that department, I'd test it alone or against others 20-21mm... it makes little sense if I compare it with the 180 and then write "not up to those standards", "there's room for improvements..."

Edited March 19, 2018 by Steve McGarrett