Thinking of buying the Leica 180mm f/2.0 Apo Summicron R to use on Canon bodies. I have read where the sharpness tops out at f5.6 but how is it at f2 or f2.8 anyone use it compared to the Canon 200mm f2 IS. I can go without IS and autofocus since it will be used on a tripod but would want the best image quality when shooting wide open. If you could post a few samples or email me an image. Thanks Dennis
i had this lens and ended up selling the lens. i used it both on canon and leica /dmr. very sharp but handling a big heavy lens was an issue for me. the 180/2.8 apo is just as good and much better value since u will be using it more. sharp from 2.8 no question. if u really want a 2.0 heavy lens, the canon with IS is much better, even though the tripod collar does not come off
I don't really have anything online to link to so I can't really show you any samples that show how it performs. Basically, it's only slightly sharper at 5.6 than it is wide open, slightly. You would stop down to alter the depth of field more so than to improve sharpness as the difference in sharpness is quite small. It is already razor sharp wide open. It has very smooth bokeh so it's ideal as a portrait lens. Long and light focus throw which combined with the extremely sharp image (wide open) allows for very accurate manual focusing. The ergonomics for maual focusing are excellent.
The 180/2.8 APO is very slightly sharper again so if 2.8 is all you want then the 180/2.8 APO is an ideal lens.
Some one recently posted that the Nikkor 200/2 was better than the R 180/2, it certainly could be, it's a later design.
From technical view
Canon weights 5.6 lbs and min focus distance is 6.2 ft/ 1.9 meter
Leica weights 5 lbs and min focus distance is 4 ft 11 in / 1.5 meter
From the samples I have seen from Nikon 200/2 VR vs Canon 200/2 IS in Japanese photo mag., the Canon definitely looks more pleasing with superb sharp center and better bokeh while the Nikon is a little more warmer tone with even overall sharpness and less sharp center than the Canon. The Canon color rendering looks closer to Leica. For non-action photos, the Leica is hard to beat while the Canon is the king for sports/action photography.
One thing to consider when shooting a lens like this, is if you intend to shoot it in bright conditions and wide open.
The Summicron 180 uses a very pricey (and now hard to find) series 6 drop-in filter/tray. If you want the circular polarizer with the tray, it's over $400 should you find it new. Used, they are sparse. I haven't seen too much in the way of neutral density filters for it, either.
Thus, in bright conditions such as f/2 and even with ISO 100, one starts hitting the upper limit of the camera's shutter speed, and quickly. Or, you could "invest" in a bunch of oddly-sized 100mm filters for the front threads, or try stepping rings and lose the slide-out hood function.
In short: on a key day or with any need for filters, you're likely going to find it expensive and/or cumbersome to get this functionality, and you should spend the money on a credible, $100+ mount.
Just some ancillary things to consider. If you cannot find a good condition Summicron for under $3,700, I would say forget it, spend the extra on a (rebated) Canon f/2. The drop-in filter is readily available at nearly 1/3rd the price, and you get an AF lens. MF on that kind of telephoto at f/2 via a modern AF-system camera can be very trying, unless everything is dead stock still.
sirimiri wrote:
One thing to consider when shooting a lens like this, is if you intend to shoot it in bright conditions and wide open.
The Summicron 180 uses a very pricey (and now hard to find) series 6 drop-in filter/tray. If you want the circular polarizer with the tray, it's over $400 should you find it new. Used, they are sparse. I haven't seen too much in the way of neutral density filters for it, either.
Thus, in bright conditions such as f/2 and even with ISO 100, one starts hitting the upper limit of the camera's shutter speed, and quickly. Or, you could "invest" in a bunch of oddly-sized 100mm filters for the front threads, or try stepping rings and lose the slide-out hood function.
In short: on a key day or with any need for filters, you're likely going to find it expensive and/or cumbersome to get this functionality, and you should spend the money on a credible, $100+ mount.
Just some ancillary things to consider. If you cannot find a good condition Summicron for under $3,700, I would say forget it, spend the extra on a (rebated) Canon f/2. The drop-in filter is readily available at nearly 1/3rd the price, and you get an AF lens. MF on that kind of telephoto at f/2 via a modern AF-system camera can be very trying, unless everything is dead stock still.
As I recall he did make the swamp, but largely because he preferred what he saw as the superior '3D' rendering of the Canon over the 'flat' rendering of the Leica.
I love my APO 180/2. I have only used it at f/2, hand held, MF manual exposure for pix of my kittens. Ideal working distance on my 7D. I do get a high number of keepers. I find the foucs very easy, even on moving targets. Yes, my left elbow gets very tired if I shoot for a long time. I tired using an extension tube and found that it added a glow to the results if shot wide open, gone 1 stop down. I tried stacking 3 or 4 TCs on it and it is still sharp but not very pratical as it does get slower and slower. With 2 2x TCs I had to stop it down 1 stop to get back the sharpness I am used to with the lens alone. When loooking at the marvelous resluts I found that if I resize just to 1/2 the image is not as impressive. Hard to post examples on the net in that case. The colors, sharpness and bokeh are outstanding IMO. One day I tired using my EF 135/2 with AF and I did not keep any of them at all. AF gave me a lower keeper rate anyways. I do think about also getting the APO 280/4 as well but wonder if it would be that different. The MFD of both lenses get my attention. I do have the Mamiya 645 APO 300/3.8, terrible MFD (12 feet) but otherwise a marvelous lens, so I may never get the 280. Going to have to try some flowers and people portraits with the 180.
It's widely known that the Leica is very sharp wide open, and stopping down just gains more DOF. Here is my recent session with it (no PP at all, processed with LR 2.6). All are shot with hand-held at ISO 800 since I felt too lazy to keep it steady:
It's widely known that the Leica is very sharp wide open, and stopping down just gains more DOF. Here is my recent session with it (no PP at all, processed with LR 2.6). All are shot with hand-held at ISO 800 since I felt too lazy to keep it steady:
I'm not sure if the high ISO you've used has killed the sharpness because those images don't really do justice to the lens (I'm sure they would have looked much sharper at lower ISO and the appropriate shutter speed to reduce/eliminate camera shake). The first image is still fairly sharp but the rest not so much. They do show the bokeh nicely however.
JohnJ wrote:
I'm not sure if the high ISO you've used has killed the sharpness because those images don't really do justice to the lens (I'm sure they would have looked much sharper at lower ISO and the appropriate shutter speed to reduce/eliminate camera shake). The first image is still fairly sharp but the rest not so much. They do show the bokeh nicely however.
JJ
I think it's just camera shake. Very nice otherwise, but definitely not pics that demo the lens as far as clarity and detail are concerned, simply due to camera shake (happens to everyone, no big deal). Bokeh is dreamy. I guess this is a good example of why the Canon f/2 200 with IS gives Leica a run for its money. The IS may have saved the shot.
Awesome lens, stop-down only for DoF (though 180/2.8 APO is a HAIR sharper WO), great bokeh. HEAVY but the sweet tripod-foot handrest really helps and makes holding and tweaking focus with fingers easy. Takes the 1.4x APO VERY well. That said, from what I've seen, from a resolution perspective, the Canon or Nikon 200/2 IS/VRs (owned the 180/2 but neither CanNikon unit) would be on par.
