I'm looking for a lens to use for landscape work on my 5D. I like to use a focal length of approx. 200-300 mm. Currently, I've been using the Leica 100 100 2.8 APO Macro, and I love the results I've been getting, but I want a longer reach with similar IQ. Am I best served by adding a 2X APO extender to the above lens for landscape work. My budget is approx $2,500. Where will I get best IQ at 200mm on:
100 2.8 APO with 2X extender at 200mm or 80-200mm at 200mm?
180 3.4 APO or 180 2.8 APO AT 180mm?
280 2.8 APO or 180 2.8 APO with 1.4 APO extender?
Lastly, is thre a noticable difference in IQ between 280 2.8 APO and 280 4 APO?
Well for what it's worth, I get wonderful results with the 180/3.4 APO in my landscape work and do use it on a 5D. It actually has spent more time on my 5D since I got it than any other lens.
Let me throw another price leader into the mix though. I also have a Mamiya 645 200/2.8 APO that I've used verly little so far. But the shots I have taken with it are really, really good. The best thing is it cost me under $500 used.
Sorry I can't comment on Leica R telephotos, but I can say that the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 CF ED is a very nice lens for this purpose: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/654552
At 300mm, the Mamiya M645 A 300/2.8 APO is fantastic. Frankly, I'd rather have an EF 300/2.8L IS (esp. for shooting sports), but the M645 is absolutely top notch. Sharp as anything and not a scrap of CA when it's used without a TC.
btw, I will not be shooting any action-just landscapes to sell as fine-art, to be enlarged to 17 to 24" wide. I use an RZ67 and a Tachihara 4X5, but for those times I want to stop a farm on the roadside, during a trip, after I see a beautiful, old barn, etc...I like to use the 5D with 200-300mm reach. As I said I LOVE the results from the 100 2.8 APO Macro (I also have the C/Y 100/2 Planar,) but I'd like to know what gives the absolute best IQ in that focal length. Thank you.
At infinity it seems to be the Leica. But the Mamiya really has a nice "quality' that it gives to the images too. Check out this thread for a little background:
Regarding 200mm I would recommend for you to read our recent discussion about "180-200mm options?". As a short summary:
- Voigtlander APO-Lantnar 180/4 is generally considered very good, small availability, raising prices
- Leica Vario-Elmar-R 80-200/4 is very good (I purchased one and I'm extreme pleased to quality, I purchased it for 200mm usage only but it's so damn good that I will be using it a lot at other focal lengths as well)
- Leica Vario-Elmar-R 105-280/4.2 is another great lens from Leica, rare,heavy and expensive
- Leica APO-Telyt 180/3.4 is good at infinity but performance not so good at close or medium distances
- Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180/2.8 has it all, perfect up close or infinity, you could find one within your budget
p.1 #10 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
I have the CV 180 APO and Mamiya 200 APO and have owned the 180/2.8 and 180/2 APOs from Leica and tested all but one of the lenses Samuli mentioned.
All a very good within any specific design constraints (e.g. 180/3.4 for infinity), but the CV and the ergonomically-challenged Mamiya are two of the THE best 180-200mm lenses I have ever used -- at any price point. They both play easily with their more costly brethren. The CV SL APOs were very much initially under-priced given their performance (although that is coming to an end fast) and the Mamiya 200/APO cost something like $3000 when new.
The Mamiya also performs nicely with an EF 1.4x. While I've never sued one, the IQ of the older non-modular Leica 280/2.8 APO is generally not considered as good as the 180/2.8 or 180/2 APOs. I saw no reduction in IQ using my 180/2 APO with the Leica 1,4x APO. My copy of the 180/2.8 APO would not take a 1.4x.
I think you're biggest issue is going to be picking a winner from a collection of same.
p.1 #12 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
Cosina-Voigtlander.
The Leica 280/4 APO is generally considered by most leicaphiles as THE best lens Leica makes (by a small margin in some cases). Both it and the 180/2.8 APO are as close to perfect (in terms of IQ) as you're going to get in their respective FLs. You will pay accordingly.
p.1 #14 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
ADAM HIRSCH wrote:
The 280 2.8 APO is a lot less expensive than the 280 4. Is there a difference in IQ?
The 280/4 APO is sharper and contrastier than the 280/2.8 APO wide open. The former also has a smoother background blur. However, I have not actually tested them stopped down, as I almost always use them wide open. I suspect they would be pretty close when stopped down for landscape. However, the 280/2.8 APO is much larger and heavier than the 280/4 APO as expected. If you plan on doing any hiking to get to the landscape, then 280/4 APO would be better for this purpose. Having said that, I have done some hiking with the 280/2.8 APO + 1.4X APO on a monopod for bird pics without too much trouble.
p.1 #15 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
ADAM HIRSCH wrote:
The 280 2.8 APO is a lot less expensive than the 280 4. Is there a difference in IQ?
Yes. The f/2.8 has some astigmatism that limits resolution outside the central area, you have to stop down to about f/8 to minimize it. The f/4 is glorious at any aperture and "pops" into focus on the viewscreen much more than the f/2.8 does.
Regarding the other combinations you mentioned I can do some testing this weekend. I can test 100 APO with 2x APO extender, 80-200 f/4, 80-200 with 2x APO, 180 f/3.4 APO, 180 f/3.4 APO with 2x APO, 180mm f/2.8 APO, 180mm f/2.8 APO with both APO extenders. I can pretty much guarantee none of these will match the 280mm f/4 APO. I no longer have access to a 280mm f/2.8 APO for testing.
Unfortunately my tests will not be full-frame, only the area covered by the DMR.
p.1 #17 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
mh2000 wrote:
The Canon EF 200/2.8L is a rather nice low cost lens as well... have you considered that too?
I'm all for Leica lenses... but when you have a Canon camera and a superb native mount lens is available for a low cost...
I would not recommend Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM to person who is asking for Leica lenses. Even 200/2.8L is one of the good Canon lenses any of the mentioned Leicas will beat it in microcontrast, colors, clarity and brilliance when shooting landscapes.
I use my 200/2.8L only for stuff which moves (motorsports etc.) now when I have Leica 80-200. I used to use it for landscapes etc. and it was fine when combined with 135L and 85L, but when I started using Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100 the decrease in quality was too much for me.
p.1 #18 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
Therein lies the costly problem. Once you start seeing what your Canon sensor can do with Leica, CV, Zeiss, etc., glass on the front, it becomes almost impossible to get excited about L glass (and hard on the wallet).
p.1 #19 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
Does anyone have any experience comparing the IQ of the 280 2.8 APO with the 180 2.8 APO, independent of focal length?
Also, any experience comparing (at infinity for landscapes) the leica APO's to the Canon 300 2.8L? Again, I would be using for landscapes, noy using wide open, and not using AF. Just want to know if the IQ of the Canon is similar in all respects. Thanks.
p.1 #20 · Leica R for Canon telephoto alternatives
Adam:
I had a couple Leica 280mm F2.8 over the years. The Leica 280 f2.8 is better than the Canon 300mm f2.8, but the newer Canon 300mm f2.8 IS is better than the Leica. The Leica 280mm f4 is then better than the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS.
Unless you can get the Leica really cheap, you are probably better off with the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS.
As for the 180mm f2.8 APO, it is a much more modern design than the 280mm f2.8 and has stunning performance from wide open.
? Is it as good as the 280 4 APO? If so, it's a lot cheaper.