Bifurcator wrote:
When you do it include a moderately priced zoom that covers 180mm (hopefully a 100-300 or a zoom of XX-200mm known to be good at the long end) for posterity. It will add controversy to the test and shake some people's faith.
And
Sigma APO 180mm f/3.5
Zeiss Sonnar 180mm F/4 ZV - as long as you're doing MF lenses.
Jupiter-6 (M39) 180mm F/2.8
Of course most of those won't mount on a Canon body... such a shame! (Maybe borrow a "real" camera for the test! hehe...j/k) ...Show more → artur5 wrote:
Which one of these won't mount on a Canon body ?
Or do you meant a NIKON body ?
Oh, yeah... I meant "FF Nikon" that the OP said he was using. Hehe, thinking "Nikon" and wrote "Canon". See how disrespectful we µ4/3 users are!?!.
Did anyone mention the Contax 80-200/4 yet? Sweet little zoom, quite light and inexpensive. Quite decent wide open, strong when stopped down, nice boke.
Should be an interesting comparison. I found a nikon 180 ais in mexico, of all places, and while hardly in perfect condition, it is the sharpest +90mm I own. I have something like 6 135s, but none seem to touch it.
I don't know if there are differences, but both are meant to be great, and I don't think anyone has claimed that the new version is better optically, just more convenient. There might be some minor coating differences, so if there are any differences optically, I would expect them to be in the area of flare.
I had the 180/2.8 Ais and shot some music concerts with it and used it from time to time over a couple of years. Great lens. In the last legs of film I had the AF version and they were equal. Judging from older MTF scorings and tests they were very close and by all means equal in real life shooting conditions. I preferred the manual version for handling.
I preferred both slightly over the 180/2.8 Contax lens, and for close range I thought them slightly better than the 180/3.4 APO-Telyt (which by default is almost useless for portraits due to long/poor min focusing distance). For distant shots the APO-Telyt was visibly better though. The Canon EF200/2.8 I thought was a very fine lens too, quite comparable to the Nikkors.
For me, the best of all 180/200mm lenses was clearly the 180/2.8 APO Elmarit. And, over the years I had a few. But, for practical use I preferred the APO-Telyt and ended up keeping it, using other focal lengths for short distance work.
For a short period I used a Dynax/Maxxum outfit (in between system stop gap solution) and the Minolta APO 200/2.8 was an amazing lens. And I'd almost dare say it was probably on par with the APO Elmarit though perhaps not around infinity.
Haven't seen/tried the Mamiya 200/2.8 though.
Other 200mm lenses have been:
Contax Tele-Tessar 200/4 and the 200/3.5, Nikkor 200/4 (crap, I thought), Tamron 180/2.5. Most of them very fine lenses.
kosmoskatten wrote:
Nikkor 200/4 (crap, I thought)
I assume you're talking about the non-Macro 200/4, which I have no experience with. I find 200/4 Micro very good.
Rodluvan wrote:
Are there any optical differences between the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AI-s and the AFD (later version)?
Yes, they're completely different designs. The AI-s has five elements in five groups and the AF-D has eight elements in six groups. I haven't used the AF-D so I can't comment on how that affects performance, except that it does focus closer.
My budget for this comparison test is pretty much used up, but if I come up with the money I'll add an AF-D.
If anyone wants to loan/rent me that lens, or a Leica 180/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R :P ....
Lee: yes, the Nikkor 200/4 non micro lens which I regrettably took over the 180/2.8 ED for a trip to Ireland. No bite/crisp/pop in that lens.
Thanks for clarifying the difference between the 180 AF and Ai-S version, I wrongly assumed they were the same optical configuration, should have checked. Performance was similar though. Both great lenses.
For size and performance the 180/2.8 Elmarit is hard to beat.
For long range the APO Telyt 180/3.4 is superb.
For close range work there are better suited 180's.
I think the Mamiya 200/2.8 APO is right up there with the best, but comes with a weight penalty.
The Schneider 180/2.8 for Rollei is not in the same league. (Schneider 90/4 and 300/4 are superb, though)
If I had to do action photography I'd choose any Canon/Nikon/Sony 180-200/2.8 AF or 70-200/2.8 zoom lenses and shoot my legacy glass for other work. None of them are poor lenses.
Rodluvan wrote:
Are there any optical differences between the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AI-s and the AFD (later version)?
Yes.AIS is 5/5 and AFD/AF-n/AF lenses are 8/6 lenses construction.1 ED lens and 9 blades aperture in each.In the real life on DSLRs AIS tends to produce a tad more CA esp. wide opened.Besides no more relevant IQ differences.Both are excellent lenses.
Peire wrote:
Yes.AIS is 5/5 and AFD/AF-n/AF lenses are 8/6 lenses construction.1 ED lens and 9 blades aperture in each.In the real life on DSLRs AIS tends to produce a tad more CA esp. wide opened.Besides no more relevant IQ differences.All are excellent lenses.
Yes, my experience with:
Nikkor 200/4, 180/2.8 Ai-s and ED-IF-AF(n), Nikkor Ai-s 135/2, Contax 135/2 and 2.8 and the rest of the 200mm Contax lenses are all back in the film days, louping and enlarging.
My digital experience only includes the 180/2.8 APO elmarit, APO-Telyt 3.4, Canon EF135/2L and Sony 135/1.8.
Oh, yeah... 
I meant "FF Nikon" that the OP said he was using. Hehe, thinking "Nikon" and wrote "Canon". See how disrespectful we µ4/3 users are!?!. 
