bscott Posted July 5, 2007 Share #1 Posted July 5, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any comments on the quality, etc of this lens? Was it made in a 3 cam? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 5, 2007 Posted July 5, 2007 Hi bscott, Take a look here 250mm lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lmr Posted July 5, 2007 Share #2 Posted July 5, 2007 The 250mm f4 2nd version is a really great lens.... then again, most of Leica lens are great lens. I believe the 280mm f4 replaced it. Of course it needs a master piece to replace it. Doug Herr will be able to provide more information and sample. If you need one... there is a Mint 250mm 2nd version with 3 cam for sale in Memphis Photo Supply with caps, original box, case and warranty card. Buzzy, the owner, is a good friend and he will answer any further questions. I tried it a few couple of times and the resuts were great. Though it is lighter, I already have the 280 f4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 5, 2007 Share #3 Posted July 5, 2007 I have the 250mm f4 - the one without the rotating tripod collar, which I believe is the first version. I don't have anything to compare it to, but the quality is v good to my eyes. The only problem I have with the lens is its size and weight. I almost always ended up using the 180mm instead as it's much more compact. The focusing ring on my 250 is also quite stiff, which I don't like, but that may just be the example I have, for all I know others may be better in this regard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscott Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted July 5, 2007 Thanks for the quick reply it really helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscott Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted July 5, 2007 what would be a good price for the lens with the tripod collar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joop van Heijgen Posted July 5, 2007 Share #6 Posted July 5, 2007 what would be a good price for the lens with the tripod collar? €220,- Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmr Posted July 6, 2007 Share #7 Posted July 6, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depending on the condition... 250mm f4 2nd version 3 CAM (67mm filter size) (With Tripod Collar) runs from $600 (EX)-$900 (Mint) USD. KEH.com would be a good place for price guide. B&H and Adorama can sometimes be a bit high. Check out Doug Herr's website... Wildlightphoto.com (You will need to request for a PW from Doug) or search for Doug in the the photo forum for samples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmr Posted July 6, 2007 Share #8 Posted July 6, 2007 Sorry... Try... "telyt" as the member name in the search. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted July 6, 2007 Share #9 Posted July 6, 2007 Good central image quality, some loss of sharpness toward the edges from chromatic abberation, very good color quality and flare resistance, nice close focus limit & handy rotating tripod collar. As far as I know all 2nd version 250 Telyts are 3-cam. I replaced it with the 280 f/4 APO, which is heavier, more expensive, focusses closer and has image quality to die for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted July 6, 2007 Share #10 Posted July 6, 2007 I had one ... it is much better than the performance report in Leica Pocket Book 7th Edition suggests ... used to use mine regularly at full aperture at air shows. But the weight was a handicap .. not in use when on a tripod but just carrying it ... and the tripod. And the step-ladder to get above the heads in the crowd. Dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscott Posted July 6, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted July 6, 2007 Well I took the plunge and bought one for 676.00 that is a one owner and I don't believe has ever been on a camera. If my shots don't look as good as Doug's, I'll know it is not the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted July 6, 2007 Share #12 Posted July 6, 2007 Well I took the plunge and bought one for 676.00 that is a one owner and I don't believe has ever been on a camera. If my shots don't look as good as Doug's, I'll know it is not the lens. Is it a Mark 1 or a Mark 2 version? Dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscott Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share #13 Posted July 10, 2007 Dear Dunk, I don't know about the mark 1 or 2 but the serial no. is 3185967 if that is of any assistance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted July 10, 2007 Share #14 Posted July 10, 2007 Dear Dunk, I don't know about the mark 1 or 2 but the serial no. is 3185967 if that is of any assistance. S/No. suggests manufactured in 1982 ... and as production of Mk1 ceased in 1979/80 then your lens must be a Mk2 ... Dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscott Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share #15 Posted July 10, 2007 Dear Dunk, is that good or bad as far as the lens performance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyp Posted July 11, 2007 Share #16 Posted July 11, 2007 Mk 1 has a rounded tripod mount which cannot rotate; the Mk 2 has a rectangular tripod mount which can be rotated to a vertical position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscott Posted July 12, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted July 12, 2007 Thanks to all for the interest and information. I'm looking forward to testing it this weekend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 19, 2007 Share #18 Posted July 19, 2007 can you also tell the 2 versions by the "250" engraved on the barrel, i am looking at one as well and notice the older ones have no "250" on the barrel thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telyt Posted July 19, 2007 Share #19 Posted July 19, 2007 can you also tell the 2 versions by the "250" engraved on the barrel, i am looking at one as well and notice the older ones have no "250" on the barrel thanks Perhaps, though with some lens designs it indicates that the lens was originally built with the 3rd cam (and possibly the first two cams as well). The most obvious difference between the 250mm lenses is the ripod collar on the later version, vs. the fixed tripod socket on the first version... or maybe the most obvious difference is the early version is 'fat' and the late version is 'slim', or maybe the most obvious difference is the minimum focus distance... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted July 19, 2007 Share #20 Posted July 19, 2007 thanks Doug, i was simply looking at the cover of the book !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.