rscheffler wrote:
I noticed some here have the 180/4 APO-Lanthar. I recently picked up the Leica 180/3.4 APO-Telyt. I haven't used it much yet, but where I have, it's mostly been at or near infinity landscape type photos. Seems to be very good, at least in comparison to my Canon 70-200/4 IS. But it's very similar in size and weight. Was kind of hoping for something a bit smaller, if not lighter. The 180/4 seems to be a very nice, relatively small size. I've read a few differing opinions about how it performs vs. the 180/3.4, with some thinking the Leica is better at distance, but the 180/4 improves at nearer distances.
Wondering if anyone has owned or compared both and can offer some insight?
I thought the 180/3.4 would scratch this particular itch, but am now wondering about the 180/4......Show more →
I bought the full Apo-Lanthar trio a while ago, but don´t have the Leica 180/3,4:-) I really enjoy the compactness of the 180/4.
Ming Thein s review of the Apo-Lanthar 180/4 confirms your impression that the Apo-Lanthars performance is best at short to middle focus distances:
"Resolving power and acuity seem to vary with distance. Maximum aperture of f4 at infinity is less than ideal; you really need f5.6 or preferably f8. Beyond f11 diffraction sets in, so you’ve really only got two usable stops at infinity. At middle distances, say up to about 300-400m, things move up a stop: f4 becomes acceptable, f5.6 is excellent. And at middle-close distances – between say 20-100m – all apertures are usable, and f4 is pretty darned good, even towards the edges on a D810. "
Yes, Ming Thein's review is a fair chunk of the impression I've built about the 180/4. I should have mentioned I read it. Does it reflect on your experience with the lens, too? Elsewhere (though now don't remember where) I read a comment that pegged the Voigtlander above the Leica. But it's probably splitting hairs.
I welcome any additional thoughts/comments on the question!
Yes, Ming Thein's review is a fair chunk of the impression I've built about the 180/4. I should have mentioned I read it. Does it reflect on your experience with the lens, too? Elsewhere (though now don't remember where) I read a comment that pegged the Voigtlander above the Leica. But it's probably splitting hairs.
I welcome any additional thoughts/comments on the question!
I have used the lens too little to make many conclusions, but so far I like what I see from the lens on my A7r: color is good with clean OOF rendering, resolution seems to be there but the focal length gives me shutter shake issues at times. I think the A7RII must be the perfect match for the lens...
Thanks again. I'm thinking an IBIS body is definitely good to have. I'm having similar problems with the 180/3.4. a7RII would be the logical choice. I'll probably wait for the price to drop a bit.
rscheffler wrote:
I noticed some here have the 180/4 APO-Lanthar. I recently picked up the Leica 180/3.4 APO-Telyt. I haven't used it much yet, but where I have, it's mostly been at or near infinity landscape type photos. Seems to be very good, at least in comparison to my Canon 70-200/4 IS. But it's very similar in size and weight. Was kind of hoping for something a bit smaller, if not lighter. The 180/4 seems to be a very nice, relatively small size. I've read a few differing opinions about how it performs vs. the 180/3.4, with some thinking the Leica is better at distance, but the 180/4 improves at nearer distances.
Wondering if anyone has owned or compared both and can offer some insight?
I thought the 180/3.4 would scratch this particular itch, but am now wondering about the 180/4...
BTW, received the new Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron just before dusk and was able to quickly try it out in terms of background rendering...
I have both - a cosmetically beat up Leica 180/3.4 Telyt and a pristine 180/4 CV. I can confirm that the CV is not as sharp as the 180/3.4 at far distances - the 180/3.4 is the sharpest ~200mm lens I've been able to find, though it is heavy. What I like about the 180/4 CV is how compact is is and it has excellent contrast and sharpness - it also has a little better flare and ghosting characteristics than the 180/3.4.
I've also found that the 180/4 CV is really really, and I mean really picky about focus at far distances - just being off a hair on the focus ring and it can be noticeably softer.
The 180/3.4 does soften up just a bit as you focus closer, but it's still very very good. The 180/4 CV I have trouble getting sharp images at closer distances, but again they are still quite good.
That 180/4 does indeed have excellent contrast . . .
Yes, Ming Thein's review is a fair chunk of the impression I've built about the 180/4. I should have mentioned I read it. Does it reflect on your experience with the lens, too? Elsewhere (though now don't remember where) I read a comment that pegged the Voigtlander above the Leica. But it's probably splitting hairs.
I welcome any additional thoughts/comments on the question!
Ming Thein's comments on the 180/4 are generally in line with mine. No way no how is the 180/4 CV sharper than the Leica 180/3.4 at any distance . . . it just has some alternative very nice characteristics that make it a usable tool.
jhinkey wrote:
And here's a 3 image stitch with the 180/4 CV at f/5.6
IBIS is a dream on the A7RII with lenses like the 180/4 CV!
Obviously in the above image (which I shot hand-held) I did not need IBIS at 1/2000 sec for a 180mm lens, but what IBIS did allow me to do was very accurately obtain critical focus with the 180/4 CV, which is very very very finicky to nail the focus at infinity.
A couple from the 180/4 CV on the A7RII. These were hand-held so the ISO got up a bit and they were a bit underexposed, but they came out well in post. f/5.6 . . . .
I've run some tests on my CV 180 this afternoon with it focused at infinity, mid distances (10 m), and close (1.2 m) and using a range of apertures. At infinity focus, F4 was slightly soft and with some vignetting, but sharpness was too close to call between F5.6 and F/8 - it was spectacular, although I took a lot of care to get it spot on.
At both mid and close focus distances, sharpness was closely similar between F/4 and F/5.6, but with more even illumination at F/5.6. Sharpness deteriorated when stopping down to F/8 and this deterioration continued at F/11. Interestingly, this result of sharpest results occurring at wider f-stops when closer focused also occurred with a Canon FD 100 F/2 that I tested at the same time. I presume that it results from diffraction effects kicking in sooner when the lens is extended for closer focussing, which results in a smaller effective aperture.
