This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
p.2 #1Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
While we're at it, is there a difference between the 180 ELmarit APO v.1 and v.2; the latter, it is my understanding and conformed by Erwin Puts, differes only in its ablility to accomodate the later APO tele-extenders. Optically, they are identical (?).
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:20 PM
p.2 #2Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
I think they cannot be completely identical, as my understand is that the rear element was moved further into the lens to accomodate the 1.4x TC.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:23 PM
p.2 #3Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
carstenw wrote:
I think they cannot be completely identical, as my understand is that the rear element was moved further into the lens to accomodate the 1.4x TC.
That's my understanding too. Mine is version 1, modified by Leica to version 2. The difference allows the 1.4x APO extender to fit.
I think they cannot be completely identical, as my understand is that the rear element was moved further into the lens to accomodate the 1.4x TC.
That's my understanding too. Mine is version 1, modified by Leica to version 2. The difference allows the 1.4x APO extender to fit.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:33 PM
p.2 #4Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Did you have the modification done yourself? If so, do you recall what it cost, roughly? That would give a hint as to the extent of the modifications. I forget the terms now, but IIRC in telephoto lenses (and others too?), the last group often acts just to spread out the rays a bit before they hit the film/sensor, so it is probably not that sensitive to placement.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:36 PM
p.2 #5Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
telyt wrote:
That's my understanding too. Mine is version 1, modified by Leica to version 2. The difference allows the 1.4x APO extender to fit.
Optically identical, that is.
carstenw wrote
I think they cannot be completely identical, as my understand is that the rear element was moved further into the lens to accomodate the 1.4x TC.Optically identical, that is.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:38 PM
p.2 #6Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Well, if you move one lens group, are they still optically identical? I would say not, but practically speaking they are of course very close.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:40 PM
p.2 #7Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
carstenw wrote:
Well, if you move one lens group, are they still optically identical? I would say not, but practically speaking they are of course very close.
So I thought as well. I can find no references anywhere on the web discussing this.
Well, if you move one lens group, are they still optically identical? I would say not, but practically speaking they are of course very close.
So I thought as well. I can find no references anywhere on the web discussing this.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:48 PM
p.2 #8Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
carstenw wrote:
Did you have the modification done yourself? If so, do you recall what it cost, roughly? That would give a hint as to the extent of the modifications. I forget the terms now, but IIRC in telephoto lenses (and others too?), the last group often acts just to spread out the rays a bit before they hit the film/sensor, so it is probably not that sensitive to placement.
I'm not certain how much it cost because the modification was done for the original owner.
The cost several years ago was ~US$600: http://leica-users.org/v33/msg06038.html
Edited on Apr 28, 2011 at 04:12 PM · View previous versions
Did you have the modification done yourself? If so, do you recall what it cost, roughly? That would give a hint as to the extent of the modifications. I forget the terms now, but IIRC in telephoto lenses (and others too?), the last group often acts just to spread out the rays a bit before they hit the film/sensor, so it is probably not that sensitive to placement.
I'm not certain how much it cost because the modification was done for the original owner.
The cost several years ago was ~US$600: http://leica-users.org/v33/msg06038.html
Edited on Apr 28, 2011 at 04:12 PM · View previous versions
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:58 PM
p.2 #9Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/14134-180mm-apo-elmarit-versus-apo-telyt-2.html#post148263
$600 sounds like the right ballpark to replace the rear group with a different one, or move it slightly, but not much more, at Leica prices.
$600 sounds like the right ballpark to replace the rear group with a different one, or move it slightly, but not much more, at Leica prices.
Apr 28, 2011 at 03:59 PM
p.2 #10Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Almass wrote:
The only other R Lux that can be used without mirror surgery is the Lux50 E60.
On everything except Sony I guess.
The only other R Lux that can be used without mirror surgery is the Lux50 E60.
On everything except Sony I guess.
Apr 28, 2011 at 04:50 PM
p.2 #11Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Almass wrote:
Many prefer the old look for portrait while new look for landscape photographyDo you have any reliable/respectable references or sources to support this?
JJIn fact, nobody knows for sure but rumor has it that both the glass and the coating was changed but no change to the optical formula.
The only way to find out would be to take the same shot with two or three different year batches versions of the Lux80 i.e. the 11880, 11881 and 11349
Frankly, this is being anal about the issue and I personally don't think it will manifest itself on picture level.
I would assume that when the DMR came out, the R lenses got a coating of some kind when new batches were produced. But this is...Show more →
And this is how internet rumours start, when 'assumptions' become 'rumours' (words (assume and rumour) you've used in your reply) and then before you know it they become 'facts'.
I do not doubt for a single second that there are differences between the first 80 lux made in 1980 (or so) and the last ones made 25 years later. Manufacturing ANYTHING is challenging and materials can simply become unavailable, exceedingly expensive or less effective than similar alternatives so changes can be forced upon a manufacturer. I don't doubt that there may have been minor changes to coating, materials and possibly even glass composition but was any of this significant in terms of actual performance? Erwin Puts' 2003 pdf "Puts Column 80-100 mm Leica R Lenses" (which is still available from the Leica web site here) mentions nothing in terms of changes or variations in the R 80/lux lens. I have never seen any information anywhere that describes any optical differences (or performance) in the 25 years the lens was manufactured, internet rumours aside.
Would you see differences if you compared the 3 versions (11880, 11881, 11349), except external differences to the lens? Well maybe. But how much can be attributed to smokers, lubricant condensation on elements, dust, wear etc etc compared to actual differences is going to be open to debate. Would I buy the latest or an early version? Well, if price was the same then the latest but only due to reduced use/wear/tear but I would buy a nice older version over a mdiocre latest version any day of the week.
JJ
JohnJ wrote
s23chang wrote
They are two different coatings where new one is sharper and more color corrected.Many prefer the old look for portrait while new look for landscape photography
JJ
The only way to find out would be to take the same shot with two or three different year batches versions of the Lux80 i.e. the 11880, 11881 and 11349
Frankly, this is being anal about the issue and I personally don't think it will manifest itself on picture level.
I would assume that when the DMR came out, the R lenses got a coating of some kind when new batches were produced. But this is...Show more →
And this is how internet rumours start, when 'assumptions' become 'rumours' (words (assume and rumour) you've used in your reply) and then before you know it they become 'facts'.
I do not doubt for a single second that there are differences between the first 80 lux made in 1980 (or so) and the last ones made 25 years later. Manufacturing ANYTHING is challenging and materials can simply become unavailable, exceedingly expensive or less effective than similar alternatives so changes can be forced upon a manufacturer. I don't doubt that there may have been minor changes to coating, materials and possibly even glass composition but was any of this significant in terms of actual performance? Erwin Puts' 2003 pdf "Puts Column 80-100 mm Leica R Lenses" (which is still available from the Leica web site here) mentions nothing in terms of changes or variations in the R 80/lux lens. I have never seen any information anywhere that describes any optical differences (or performance) in the 25 years the lens was manufactured, internet rumours aside.
Would you see differences if you compared the 3 versions (11880, 11881, 11349), except external differences to the lens? Well maybe. But how much can be attributed to smokers, lubricant condensation on elements, dust, wear etc etc compared to actual differences is going to be open to debate. Would I buy the latest or an early version? Well, if price was the same then the latest but only due to reduced use/wear/tear but I would buy a nice older version over a mdiocre latest version any day of the week.
JJ
Apr 28, 2011 at 04:52 PM
p.2 #12Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
For those who are interested in the difference between the two,
here is the link.
I don't understand why people think it is rumor where we all know it is the fact that they are different coating. You shouldn't have to ask me to translate from Chinese as the "picture" should speak for itself
Leica vs Leitz 80
In fact, the color differences should be similar to the Summilux 50 E55 vs E60.
here is the link.
I don't understand why people think it is rumor where we all know it is the fact that they are different coating. You shouldn't have to ask me to translate from Chinese as the "picture" should speak for itself
Leica vs Leitz 80
In fact, the color differences should be similar to the Summilux 50 E55 vs E60.
Apr 29, 2011 at 03:35 AM
p.2 #13Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
s23chang wrote:
For those who are interested in the difference between the two,
here is the link.
I don't understand why people think it is rumor where we all know it is the fact that they are different coating. You shouldn't have to ask me to translate from Chinese as the "picture" should speak for itself
Leica vs Leitz 80
In fact, the color differences should be similar to the Summilux 50 E55 vs E60.
The wird thing is that I at first did not see the caption under each and was sure that the images on the right must be from the later Leica version as they seem to show more contrast and color saturation! I was surprised to notice that was the early version.
E55 v E60 Lux are completely different designs which also could account for any differences.
For those who are interested in the difference between the two,
here is the link.
I don't understand why people think it is rumor where we all know it is the fact that they are different coating. You shouldn't have to ask me to translate from Chinese as the "picture" should speak for itself
Leica vs Leitz 80
In fact, the color differences should be similar to the Summilux 50 E55 vs E60.
The wird thing is that I at first did not see the caption under each and was sure that the images on the right must be from the later Leica version as they seem to show more contrast and color saturation! I was surprised to notice that was the early version.
E55 v E60 Lux are completely different designs which also could account for any differences.
Apr 29, 2011 at 05:20 AM
p.2 #14Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Interesting comparison.
However and as usual it is a Big however.
1- The comparison is only between the 11880 and the 11881!
The 11349 is not part of the test and it is the most interesting lens where it encompasses all the optical developments. I still think it is the best version maybe closer in rendition to the Leitz 11880 than the Leica 11881. The 11349 has more saturated colors. Then again it might be my imagination as I am drawing a parallel looking at low res pics on a Chinese website and looking at my 11349 pics in high res!
2- The test on the Chinese site has still to be looked at with a pinch of salt.
The pics are shot on Velvia RVP. This now involves two distinct processes. The first is the E6 bath and the second are the digital scans. Lot can happen in between and affects the result achieved.
I would be hesitant to conclude anything based on the pics shown on the Chinese website. And most importantly they are completely oblivious of the most important version which is the 11349.
I will still conclude that all three versions are good, but I prefer the 11349...
However and as usual it is a Big however.
1- The comparison is only between the 11880 and the 11881!
The 11349 is not part of the test and it is the most interesting lens where it encompasses all the optical developments. I still think it is the best version maybe closer in rendition to the Leitz 11880 than the Leica 11881. The 11349 has more saturated colors. Then again it might be my imagination as I am drawing a parallel looking at low res pics on a Chinese website and looking at my 11349 pics in high res!
2- The test on the Chinese site has still to be looked at with a pinch of salt.
The pics are shot on Velvia RVP. This now involves two distinct processes. The first is the E6 bath and the second are the digital scans. Lot can happen in between and affects the result achieved.
I would be hesitant to conclude anything based on the pics shown on the Chinese website. And most importantly they are completely oblivious of the most important version which is the 11349.
I will still conclude that all three versions are good, but I prefer the 11349...
Apr 29, 2011 at 06:05 AM
p.2 #15Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Prices differences are just normal seasonal variance. wait til this November/December and you'll see actual transaction prices (as opposed to current 'buy it now' prices) go for similar amounts as 4-5 months ago.
Apr 29, 2011 at 09:02 PM
p.2 #16Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
JimUe wrote:
Prices differences are just normal seasonal variance. wait til this November/December and you'll see actual transaction prices (as opposed to current 'buy it now' prices) go for similar amounts as 4-5 months ago.
WoW. You seem to read well the future!
Please enlighten us as to how you reached such result?
Any chance of giving us some more tips on the stock market?
I am interested in Tin futures...
Big Sighhhh
Prices differences are just normal seasonal variance. wait til this November/December and you'll see actual transaction prices (as opposed to current 'buy it now' prices) go for similar amounts as 4-5 months ago.
WoW. You seem to read well the future!
Please enlighten us as to how you reached such result?
Any chance of giving us some more tips on the stock market?
I am interested in Tin futures...
Big Sighhhh
Apr 30, 2011 at 02:07 AM
p.2 #17Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Leica changed the coating in 11881 as less photographers needs the yellow coating for black and white photography. The improved new coating does everything well as it creates more neutral/blue rather than neutral/yellow. Because of the corrected color, all the images appeared more sharp and gives more 3D look than the old.
11349 was a revised version of the leica 11881 to allow using tele-converter.
In terms of coating, it is identical to the 11881.
As I said, the older version might work better for portait as it gives softer look skin tones.
However, if I have to choose only one, then the new coating version is more useful for landscape. It is a sharper more contrast rendering than the old. It is why that new version cost a lot more as it is more in demand. Then again, if I want the new version, the other option is to go with the new Zeiss Zx 100mm F2.
11349 was a revised version of the leica 11881 to allow using tele-converter.
In terms of coating, it is identical to the 11881.
As I said, the older version might work better for portait as it gives softer look skin tones.
However, if I have to choose only one, then the new coating version is more useful for landscape. It is a sharper more contrast rendering than the old. It is why that new version cost a lot more as it is more in demand. Then again, if I want the new version, the other option is to go with the new Zeiss Zx 100mm F2.
Apr 30, 2011 at 09:11 AM
p.2 #18Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
s23chang wrote:
Leica changed the coating in 11881 as less photographers needs the yellow coating for black and white photography. The improved new coating does everything well as it creates more neutral/blue rather than neutral/yellow. Because of the corrected color, all the images appeared more sharp and gives more 3D look than the old.
11349 was a revised version of the leica 11881 to allow using tele-converter.
In terms of coating, it is identical to the 11881.
As I said, the older version might work better for portait as it gives softer look skin tones.
However, if I have to choose only one, then the...Show more →
1- I am very interested in what you are saying. I personally have an open contact with some Leica people which left the company and could not get much information such as yours. Even E. Puts does not shed any light on the different coating and optical changes...if any.
Can you please substantiate what you are professing to enable us accept your post in a credible manner? Or at least, if you can point us to any referencing?
2- I do not agree with your statement on the 11349 developed to take the teleconverter as the original 11880 and the 11881 did accept the original converters, not that there is any point to use a converter on an 80/1.4! My take is that it was done to correspond with the development of the Leica R6/6.2 and 8/9 to reach the DMR launch.
3- I again cannot understand your other option to go with the Zeiss 100/2 instead of the Lux80 as these lenses are not comparable in any form or means.
It would have been more logical if you said that you would go for the ZF85/2, in which case it is more understandable and acceptable.
Leica changed the coating in 11881 as less photographers needs the yellow coating for black and white photography. The improved new coating does everything well as it creates more neutral/blue rather than neutral/yellow. Because of the corrected color, all the images appeared more sharp and gives more 3D look than the old.
11349 was a revised version of the leica 11881 to allow using tele-converter.
In terms of coating, it is identical to the 11881.
As I said, the older version might work better for portait as it gives softer look skin tones.
However, if I have to choose only one, then the...Show more →
1- I am very interested in what you are saying. I personally have an open contact with some Leica people which left the company and could not get much information such as yours. Even E. Puts does not shed any light on the different coating and optical changes...if any.
Can you please substantiate what you are professing to enable us accept your post in a credible manner? Or at least, if you can point us to any referencing?
2- I do not agree with your statement on the 11349 developed to take the teleconverter as the original 11880 and the 11881 did accept the original converters, not that there is any point to use a converter on an 80/1.4! My take is that it was done to correspond with the development of the Leica R6/6.2 and 8/9 to reach the DMR launch.
3- I again cannot understand your other option to go with the Zeiss 100/2 instead of the Lux80 as these lenses are not comparable in any form or means.
It would have been more logical if you said that you would go for the ZF85/2, in which case it is more understandable and acceptable.
Apr 30, 2011 at 09:41 AM
p.2 #19Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
Any similar info regarding the difference between the 180/2.8 APO v.1 versus v.2, beyond the placement of the rear element to accommodate the 1.4 APO TC?
Apr 30, 2011 at 10:31 AM
p.2 #20Leica R 80 Summilux; ROM vs 3-CAM
j.liam wrote:
Any similar info regarding the difference between the 180/2.8 APO v.1 versus v.2, beyond the placement of the rear element to accommodate the 1.4 APO TC?
You have already posted on the L Forum that you had corresponded with E.Puts who answered you that there is no difference.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/166485-question-re-leica-r-180-2-a.html
There is no higher authority than E.Puts on Leica glass and you know that.
So what's the point in asking the question here again?
If it makes you happy, I prefer version 1, which is what you already claim to have.
Any similar info regarding the difference between the 180/2.8 APO v.1 versus v.2, beyond the placement of the rear element to accommodate the 1.4 APO TC?
You have already posted on the L Forum that you had corresponded with E.Puts who answered you that there is no difference.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/166485-question-re-leica-r-180-2-a.html
There is no higher authority than E.Puts on Leica glass and you know that.
So what's the point in asking the question here again?
If it makes you happy, I prefer version 1, which is what you already claim to have.
Apr 30, 2011 at 01:00 PM