Olympus vs. Nikon vs. Zeiss vs.

Wondering how they compare ... color vs. 3D vs. bokeh vs. resolution, etc.
I'll be shooting on crop (1D MK II), so corners are not as critical.

Pics if you got em' ... (or links)

Thanks

OM Zuiko f/2.8 180mm

My 180 seach led me astray a bit. I wound up with a Mamiya 645 200/2.8 APO and a Leica R 180/3.4 APO instead of a true 180mm. Filet Mignon IQ for Sirlion prices, food for thought.

Was fooling around with a 180 yesterday. I used late afternoon available light at ISO 200, so it was shot wide open, 1/100th, kind of pushing the limits of the lens. Here's one shot; name that 180 without looking at the EXIF (answer 4 posts down):

jamesdak wrote:
My 180 seach led me astray a bit. I wound up with a Mamiya 645 200/2.8 APO and a Leica R 180/3.4 APO instead of a true 180mm. Filet Mignon IQ for Sirlion prices, food for thought.

Interesting thought about the Mamiya. I've got the 150 2.8 A that has prompted me looking for the 180 2.8 ... not sure about the budget / size on the APO. The 3.4 APO ... not much aperture gain vs. my C/Y 80-200 f/4.

erichard ... I'm guessing Sonnar (but I'm really clueless)

My Mamiya was right at $400 if memory serves correctly. Bought it from KEH.

Leitz/Leica Elmar-R 4/180

itīs a lightweight, very sharp and the price is not too high but not f:2.8

Here some samples

http://www.foto-bochum.net/gallery/8341725_Xe3iX#546823596_J2SVe

RustyBug,

It's a Leica 180 APO 3.4, just as James recommended in a previous post. It's not supposed to be great close up, so I thought I'd test it out. That's about as close as the lens gets. DOF is very thin that close, and focus was on the eyelash reflection in her left eye (eyelash tips are already out of focus with the 180 this close at f/3.4.) The lens is generally understood to be geared to long distance to infinity, as it was developed for the navy (US?). I want to try the same setup at f/4 or f/5.6 and see what it can do, since the widest aperture is often the softest.

rdst wrote:
Leitz/Leica Elmar-R 4/180

itīs a lightweight, very sharp and the price is not too high but not f:2.8

Here some samples

http://www.foto-bochum.net/gallery/8341725_Xe3iX#546823596_J2SVe

I can 2nd this one though, only shame that its not apochromatic (which can be seen in certain circumstances). Its almost as small and lightweight as my meyer (and takumar and jupiter and zeiss jena) 135/3.5, which says something!

erichard wrote:
RustyBug,

It's a Leica 180 APO 3.4, just as James recommended in a previous post. It's not supposed to be great close up, so I thought I'd test it out. That's about as close as the lens gets. DOF is very thin that close, and focus was on the eyelash reflection in her left eye (eyelash tips are already out of focus with the 180 this close at f/3.4.) The lens is generally understood to be geared to long distance to infinity, as it was developed for the navy (US?).

I understood that it was used for german tankdivision? (-edit, this seems unlikely however, seeing that the German army was immobilised for a great part, but who cares anyway...) It is the Telyt right? In any case this was a mythical lens which was surpassed by the most excellent (and expensive) 180/2.0 if I remember it right.

Well, the items I've read said Navy, but you'd think they'd develop a longer lens than 180 for the high seas. Tanks seem more like it, but I've never read that till you mentioned it. I think some were saying the lens would have cost a bit more had research for it not been subsidized by military spending.

Yes, it's the APO-telyt-R made in Canada.

Yes I edited my part. Fact remains that this lens had some military purpose somewhere which makes this lens better in some way or another.

I love my nikkor 180 2.8 Ai-D ED

I like that Nikkor as well. There's a 180 ED on the B+S board for $175, graded as 7 out of 10. That's a cheap entry into the 180 space. That lens has a long history of satisfied customers. I've had the manual and autofocus versions, and they are great. I've still got the manual one, as it has a fungus internally, and I can't sell it that way (for what it's worth).

I still have my Tair 21M 200/4 and Nikon 180/2.8 ED. Will probably sell both eventually now I that I also have a Leica 180/2 APO lens. Have not used it at anything other than f/2 so far. Yes, my vote would be for the Nikon 180/2.8 ED.

biotar wrote:I understood that it was used for german tankdivision?

US Navy.

telyt wrote:
biotar wrote:I understood that it was used for german tankdivision?

US Navy.

That makes it official! Especially from someone called telyt

I've been there and done that with all the 180-200mm's, except the Leica f/2-2.8 APO's. What I have now is the Sigma 180/2.8 APO macro (in a very rare Nikon AI-S manual focus version), and an Angenieux 180/2.3 APO. Both are spectacular.

The best I found before those was the Nikon 180/2.8 AIS ED. The Leica 180/3.4 is also a nice sharp lens but has ugly bokeh (perfect in the pic above which has no backgroound , and too much vignetting wide open.

I've had the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED Ais and was not really very impressed but it certainly has many followers who love it. I personally wouldn't recommend it though.

I've had the Carl Zeiss 180/2.8 for Contax. It was a nice lens but still nothing special. They don't sell for very much which I think reflects their performance to some degree.

I have the 180/2 and 180/3.4 Leica R. Both are stunnig but different. I think the 3.4 is a little sharper in the centre than the cron (which is really saying something because the cron is razor sharp wide open) but aside from that there is little in it. The telyt vignettes more than the cron, which I like but might not suit everyone. The cron focuses closer so is much better suited to portrait and that's about all I use it for these days. I still won't part with the telyt simply becasue it is so small so it's a good traveller but the telyts poor close focus distance doesn't make it an ideal portrait lens. As big and cumbersome as the cron looks, it's actually incredibly fast and accurate to focus and use. When shooting people wide open it's rare to get the focus wrong, even with it's shallow depth of field, other than because of subject movement. It's an amazingly well designed lens.

JJ

Close focus is my main reason for keeping the Sigma 180/2.8 APO macro even though I have the Angeniux. It close focuses to 2ft for 2:1 macro. It's also the lens I take if I'll be in a dirty environment. It seems to be very well sealed, much like the Leica 180/3.4. It also cost the least of all the 180-200/2.8's I've tested

Edit: Oops!, I also had both version of the Soligor 180-200/2.8's and they were cheaper than the sigma, so I lied. BTW, the Soligor were great performers for the money.


JohnJ wrote:
I've had the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED Ais and was not really very impressed but it certainly has many followers who love it. I personally wouldn't recommend it though.

I've had the Carl Zeiss 180/2.8 for Contax. It was a nice lens but still nothing special. They don't sell for very much which I think reflects their performance to some degree.

I have the 180/2 and 180/3.4 Leica R. Both are stunnig but different. I think the 3.4 is a little sharper in the centre than the cron (which is really saying something because the cron is razor sharp wide open) but aside from that there is little in it. The cron focuses closer so is much better suited to portrait and that's about all I use it for these days. I still won't part with the telyt simply becasue it is so small so it's a good traveller but the telyts poor close focus distance doesn't make it an ideal portrait lens.

JJ