by generations do you mean the 3cam and rom variants? Otherwise I'm personally not aware of two different generations.
The elmarit 180/2.8 goes for AU795 for 3CAM and AU995 for ROM at a store I frequent, in good condition.
the ROM is like new, haven't seen the 3CAM but I doubt it's flawed optically. At time of writing AU995 is about US636, AU795 is US508. Not sure if that's the same sorta price you'd pay in the USA, but these guys seem to have pretty good deals on leica R stuff.
There are two optical versions of the pre-APO 180mm Elmarit-R. The older one is often called the "fat" version a.k.a. "the brick". It has a fixed tripod mount and uses Series VIII filters. The later version is smaller and much lighter and uses E67 filters. I don't know how they compare to each other optically, but IMHO the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor *ED is a better lens. To out-perform the 180mm Nikkor *ED you'd have to get one of the Leica APO 180s.
Nov 19, 2008 at 09:10 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I'm eyeing on Leica 180/2.8 Non-Apo 3-cam version.
I know from search that it's inferior to Apo 180/3.4 at infinity, but how does it compare to canon 200/2.8 II as far as sharpness and resolution?
Is it worth $450?
I've tried Apo 180/3.4, and liked its resolution, especially at the infinity.
I'm curious as to how 180/2.8 pre-apo performs compared to EF200/2.8L II or 70-200/2.8L at 180mm...
Paul Yi wrote:
Is it worth $450?
I've tried Apo 180/3.4, and liked its resolution, especially at the infinity.
I'm curious as to how 180/2.8 pre-apo performs compared to EF200/2.8L II or 70-200/2.8L at 180mm...
Thats a good question... There are a lot of clever shooters on this forum that experiment with all kinds of lenses. For different reasons...
I might be in the minority here but for me the whole "alt glass" thing is about the middle to super-wide range of lenses: from 85mm down to 14mm etc. I have the Canon 100/2, 70-200/2.8 L and the 400/2.8 L and really feel no need to replace them. The performance, auto focus, auto aperture, metering and stability of these lenses are great. OK, not everyone has a need for a fast 400, but the other two lenses are affordable and easy to find. Do I want another 180mm lens that would require an adapter, possible surgery, stop down metering and manual focus? Not really, but I have the telephoto range covered with Canon glass. If I did not own Canon glass would I go with different "alt" lenses? Probably not. I think modern telephotos and long zoom lenses is one of the areas that Canon does really well.
I am a recent fan of "alt" lenses though. The thing that started me down this road was the question: "are there interesting choices or alternatives to the Canon lenses in the 50mm and wide angle arena?" When push comes to shove I have never been super thrilled with the Canon wide lenses. The asking price for a fast Canon 50mm is a negative as well. Lenses like the 58mm Rokkor and the 50mm Takumar are fun but real working additions to my kit.
Its interesting to watch folks adapt a manual focus telephoto to a modern DLSR. Consider the 300, 400, 500 FD lenses. Are there any reasons to go through the hassle of adapting these lenses and deal with the limitations (like manual focus etc) other than PRICE? Do you get better photos with the 300 FD than you do with the EF version? As a photojournalist and former sports shooter I have used a lot of long lenses over the years and find that you can't go wrong with the long Canon EF glass. I am sure dedicated Nikon shooters will feel the same way about the Nikor glass as well. I don't do much long lens work these days but I have shot NFL football, MLB baseball, US Open tennis, PGA golf, polo, racing, high school sports etc, etc. I have shot with manual 300/2.8's and manual 400/2.8's and the auto focus counterparts and IMHO the auto focus and auto aperture feature is a HUGE plus...
While I tend to agree that Canon's telephoto's are good. I do find the 70-200/2.8L IS USM giving me an image that I'm not truly happy with in a lot of situations. So now I use it for those times when I need the AF performance but shoot my alternatives for my other purposes. I can state with certainty that the Leica R 180/3.4 is a better producer when focused near infinity in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness. In fact all my alternative primes I've tested against this zoom beat it. Yet on it's own the zoom seems plenty sharp but does give me some images which look to plasticy.
In fact if check back in this weekend you should find a test by me comparing this zoom to the Leica R 180/3.4 and my recently acquired Mamiya 645 200/2.8
I think I have read (not sure where) that some users have found the non IS version of the 70-200/2.8 gives better IQ. I really like mine, it has been one of my "work horses" over the years. I have never tried the IS version though. But I must admit I don't do much infinity focusing with it.
Like most zooms the EF 70-200/2.8 L lens is not a "master" of anything, but I find the combination of zoom range, brightness, solid build quality, sharpness (even at 2.8) and focus speed quite satisfying. And I am pretty picky when it comes to camera gear...
I had the 3cam version of pre-apo and it wasn't all that impressive.
The contrast and sharpness is good but the bokeh is horrible. The CA is very noticeable as well. Not a typical Leica cream of the crop leica lens.
I actually prefer the 180/2.8 Zeiss Jena Zebra better for the low end 180/2.8 lens.
telyt wrote:
There are two optical versions of the pre-APO 180mm Elmarit-R. The older one is often called the "fat" version a.k.a. "the brick". It has a fixed tripod mount and uses Series VIII filters. The later version is smaller and much lighter and uses E67 filters. I don't know how they compare to each other optically, but IMHO the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor *ED is a better lens. To out-perform the 180mm Nikkor *ED you'd have to get one of the Leica APO 180s.
Hi. everyone.
I just looked at the Leitz 180 APO, price at B/H, about $5000+. That really makes my recently purchased 180 ED, for $275, (Mint, boxed) a really great buy. I would agree, that possibly the Leitz, is better. I think Telyt, is saying the Nikor is much better, than the early Leitz 180s. I think hes right, that Leitz APO , probably is out of most our budgets-whereas-maybe the Nikor 180ED, isnt, and may indeed, be a better buy that the early Leitz. I have owned many of each-and agree with him. Am i right?
Cheers-happy Turkey day
Harry
s23chang wrote:
I had the 3cam version of pre-apo and it wasn't all that impressive.
The contrast and sharpness is good but the bokeh is horrible. The CA is very noticeable as well. Not a typical Leica cream of the crop leica lens.
I actually prefer the 180/2.8 Zeiss Jena Zebra better for the low end 180/2.8 lens.
3 cams doesn't indicate optical version.
Kingfishphoto wrote:
I just looked at the Leitz 180 APO, price at B/H, about $5000+.
Just a point of clarification, the company no longer makes 'Leitz' lenses. The Leitz family is no longer involved with the company. The current lenses are 'Leica' lenses. If you're patient you can find a used 180 APO Elmarit for less than half the retail new price... but you have to be patient because few people want to give them up.
Nov 26, 2008 at 09:02 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
For anyone who is interested KEH has the Leica R APO 180mm f/2.8 in excellent condition on sale for $1,900. The difference between Leica R new and used prices is quite dramatic. So a decent used price for this lens can actually be less than 40% of the new price.
Steve Spencer wrote:
For anyone who is interested KEH has the Leica R APO 180mm f/2.8 in excellent condition on sale for $1,900. The difference between Leica R new and used prices is quite dramatic. So a decent used price for this lens can actually be less than 40% of the new price.
Older models of this lens will not accept the Leica 1.4x APO Extender so if that's potential issue be sure you get either the later model or an older one that has been modified (the modification is about US$600). As far as I know the problem with the older model is clearance between the rear element and the front of the extender. The modification is optical so it's expensive.
