I’m starting to get a feel for this lens taking infinity landscape shots. Extremely sharp and even backlit scenes have almost no
Chromatic aberrations.
Im curious to know what other lenses have this kind of performance or better. I’m looking for focal lengths 135-300.
Thanks! The 280 f/4 looks spectacular. May have to sell a kidney but still...
In the 135 FL, is the elmarit worth a look? Seems to me the 125 Voigtlander is the best of breed in that focal range but wondering if anyone else makes almost flawless types like this.
I have mostly portrait lens and want dedicated landscaper. Bonus if its light.
But being able to shoot backlight contrast scenes and even 8 or 10 point sunstars is what I'm after.
Kinda specific but its a look I see a lot and want to incorporate.
Mar 10, 2019 at 11:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
bestdayz wrote:
Thanks! The 280 f/4 looks spectacular. May have to sell a kidney but still...
In the 135 FL, is the elmarit worth a look? Seems to me the 125 Voigtlander is the best of breed in that focal range but wondering if anyone else makes almost flawless types like this.
I have mostly portrait lens and want dedicated landscaper. Bonus if its light.
But being able to shoot backlight contrast scenes and even 8 or 10 point sunstars is what I'm after.
Kinda specific but its a look I see a lot and want to incorporate.
At 135mm the R Elmarit is not a strong lens. It is a very old design and has lots of chromatic aberrations. The Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO, however, is a very good and quite small lens. It of course costs a lot more. If you can handle the size the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO is perhaps even a better lens, and on Sony E mount the smaller but one stop slower Batis 135 f/2.8 APO is perhaps even better yet. So lots of good choices at 135mm, but unfortunately none of the good ones are as cheap as the Leica R 180 f/3.4 APO.
The Leica 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar M is worth a try. I had some good experiences with it in the past before I switched to only native FE lenses. You can get them for around $300 at the low end for the old 1950s style models and more modern stylings are around $1,000.
I would rate the Leica 180mm APO-Telyt as superior to the 135mm f4 lens though based on my experiences with both lenses but it's supposed to be very close to the 135mm APO-Telyt version.
I have the 180/3.4 APO and love it, had the 135/2.8 and sold it, it was average, my Topcor R 135/3.5 was much better.
I also have the 100APO Macro and 60 Macro and both work well with the 180.
I wish the 280/4 APO was less expensive.
Steve Spencer wrote:
At 135mm the R Elmarit is not a strong lens. It is a very old design and has lots of chromatic aberrations. The Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO, however, is a very good and quite small lens. It of course costs a lot more. If you can handle the size the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO is perhaps even a better lens, and on Sony E mount the smaller but one stop slower Batis 135 f/2.8 APO is perhaps even better yet..
And it looks like now we can add the 135 GM even better yet, at least in terms of sharpness. Definitely interested to see reviews on other aspects of that one (I don't even have any Sony cameras anymore, just that much of a lens geek).
I would like to save and wait to get the voigtlander 125. It’s bokeh is best I’ve seen and I like that focal length. And it’s 1:1 macro. The zeiss 135 apo is close but macro makes a difference for me.
My quandary is portrait length range. I’m still looking for something that fits my Canon EOS R. They don’t make the voigtlander 65 and it would be my choice. The zeiss 85 milvus seems the way to go but I’m unsure still. I’ve heard and seen good things from Leica 90 2.8 pre asph.
bestdayz wrote:
I would like to save and wait to get the voigtlander 125. It’s bokeh is best I’ve seen and I like that focal length. And it’s 1:1 macro. The zeiss 135 apo is close but macro makes a difference for me.
My quandary is portrait length range. I’m still looking for something that fits my Canon EOS R. They don’t make the voigtlander 65 and it would be my choice. The zeiss 85 milvus seems the way to go but I’m unsure still. I’ve heard and seen good things from Leica 90 2.8 pre asph.
I have all three, and they are spectacular...but should not be compared.
This is how I use them
180mm APO for Landscape and Night Cityscape at Infinity.
135mm Zeiss APO for Portrait & Head Shots.
125mm Voigtlander APO for Macro & Product Photography.
If you like I could do some side by side comparison shots to help with your decision process.
The problem with 2019 is the ubiquity of excellent tele primes at every price point. The classic masterpieces are not looking so eternal anymore. My collection includes the Leitz Tele-Elmar 135/4, CZ Aposonnar 200/2 C/Y, Leica Apo-Telyt-R 280/4, Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-I, Nikkor 800/8. The TE135 is a true classic but has no special glass and it shows badly. The other superteles are loaded with special glass but aren't fully corrected for CA when pixel-peeped with the sensors of today. Some of them have other deficiencies like horrendous b/g bokeh (AS200) or serious loss of contrast when wide open (Nikkor 300). The TAT280 has fared best over time with just some lateral color evident.
Unless you're a collector, a lens purchased today should be something a bit more modern if you want performance. You could hardly go wrong for the price with the Rokinon 135/2 (although it needs protection from stray light), the Nikkor 70-200/4, or the Sigma 100-400 DG Contemporary.
Yes the samyang/rokinon lenses seemed to review well but one thing kept coming up that bugged me and that was quality control and the experience that they tend to break down. Not a big fan of unreliability. Other than than for 200-300 samyang 85 1.4 asph is great. Unfortunately I have been infected by the zeiss virus.
They explain why I have written to Cosina, asking them to consider a re-release of the APO-Lanthar 180mm f/4 in modern form for E-mount. How sad that to get the quality, outdoor enthusiasts are forced to carry lenses like the GM 100-400, a slow, narrow focus, variable aperture 1400 gram behemoth. Or scratch around for decades-old releases or use a modern slow zoom, the very embodiment of characterless imaging. A market failure, is what it is.
Please also ask Cosina to include variable pitch focus throw in the new design for better control over focus at far distances.
They also still need to release a new 28/2 or 28/2.8 (both in M and mirrorless mounts).
The 'problem' is that outside some of us here, a 180/4 manual focus lens is not exactly a sexy product. If you think f/4 zooms are characterless, then what will keep the future 180/4 re-release from falling into the same line of thinking? Sexy is Sigma's Art series of f/1.4 super primes as an example, which have probably catapulted Sigma from the off-brand basement to sitting at the same table as the OEMs. IMO we really have only Cosina to rely on for our weird lens requests. Or maybe someday one of the upstart Chinese brands will give it a try.
rscheffler wrote:
Please also ask Cosina to include variable pitch focus throw in the new design for better control over focus at far distances.
They also still need to release a new 28/2 or 28/2.8 (both in M and mirrorless mounts).
The 'problem' is that outside some of us here, a 180/4 manual focus lens is not exactly a sexy product. If you think f/4 zooms are characterless, then what will keep the future 180/4 re-release from falling into the same line of thinking? Sexy is Sigma's Art series of f/1.4 super primes as an example, which have probably catapulted Sigma from the off-brand basement to sitting at the same table as the OEMs. IMO we really have only Cosina to rely on for our weird lens requests. Or maybe someday one of the upstart Chinese brands will give it a try. ...Show more →
I switched from Olympus to Sony when the first A7 was released, but I kept one body and the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 because of the quality of that lens and its relative size/weight. I only ended up selling it when I was finally able to find a good price on a CV180/4.
'then what will keep the future 180/4 re-release from falling into the same line of thinking?'
In 2019 the concept of a character zoom is a contradiction in terms. The idea died with the demise of the CY-N-R 'enthusiast zooms' of yesteryear. Now the emphasis is purely on focus speed, cost/performance ratios and AF-AF-AF. More is the pity, in my view.
It helps explain the lengths users here go to to keep using their 100-300s and 35-70s in CY, among the other excellent film era character zooms. Few can even work a manual focus 50mm prime, let alone these lenses.
Modern zooms are an eternal compromise, made for two classes of people: (i) entry level or convenience consumers, and (ii) 'get the job done' pros. In the first instance users are just happy to 'cover' so many focal lengths which they fallaciously feel they 'need', and in the second clients simply want a slick, clean set of images. I'd rather subsist on a diet of cardboard than use one of these bland mainstream items. (speaking of the 70-200 lot, not specialty items like the 100-400s)
A fixed FL lens is a bespoke optic, with far greater degrees of design freedom to deliver all that matters to the discerning photographer, a shrinking demographic if ever there was one.
But one company is different, unafraid of producing a large catalogue of compelling and alluring primes, in full knowledge that very few of them will sell in large numbers. Cosina have shown in their recent releases for Sony a remarkable understanding of the needs of enthusiasts. The result is shown in the hundreds of images (and hundreds of pages!) of the lens-specific threads. Yes, we need more from them in the 28-35 range so dismally served by the latter day geniuses at Sony and Zeiss.
But, a light 180mm that will serve 42mp onwards equipped with focus assist and IBIS, croppable to 220-240mm would likely meet with great success even in its small niche.
Why? No competition exists! And that is a very different situation than say, the 110/2.5 APO they just released, which faces stout OEM competition from a very good Sony macro, plus all the other off-brand optics people migrate in with. Last thing to say is that striking while the E-mount iron is hot might be important, before the new cameras muddy the mirrorless waters - I am a believer in mount-targeted lenses for obvious reasons. cheers.
Looking at a (recent?) Canon 70-200/4 L USM IS II zoom tested by Optical Limits, this 176mm long monstrosity (the CV 180 was a mere 79mm long) received a positive rating. But looking closer, the long end has pincushion of almost 2% (the CV's distortion is negligible) and OL conspicuously omit providing more than a couple of images - they have an audience to please too. One of the images shows some truly rough OOF bokeh, a double-lined mess.
On a practical note, the lens dwarfs even the Canon 5DSr, without its hood, reducing its utility and scaring small children. I can't imagine one of these on a Sony a7 series. It's commendably light for its class at 780 grams, but enthusiasts want their own choices at 75-85-100-135mm where there are some great lenses that weigh little, and can shoot 1-2 stops faster with tailormade bokeh at far greater image quality than this weak point of this zoom.
So such zooms actually tempt users to close off other, better options. Then there is the not insignificant matter of rendering - do you really want all your images to look the same from a compromised optic? A 70/4, 85/4, 135/4 and 200/4? Jack of all trades, master of none. Below is how it did on the 50mp camera (for which it was presumably made).
I have the 180/3.4 and the Canon 70-200/4 IS v1. The 180 is a technically better lens (sharper across the frame) with somewhat nicer rendering (not specifically better background blur), but I use the 70-200 probably in a 10000:1 ratio over the 180 for various reason, including the practical one - to 'get the job done' without regret.
I guess whatever floats your boat.
Looking at many recent lens releases - those that fall in the category of 'modern' seem to be most. High sharpness, good contrast, colour, saturation. One could also say on the boring side, or more euphemistically: clean. I can't think of many recent releases that offer overt character. Maybe the 7A 50/1.1 and 35/2. The new Voigtlander 35/2 has hints of their older 35/1.4's background rendering. But their 40 and 50/1.2s are pretty neutral. Same with the Apo Lanthars. I'm not convinced a new 180 will be much different. It'll still be a nice lens to have... Hopefully they'll keep it as compact as possible. Hopefully in all mirrorless mounts.
My collection includes the Leitz Tele-Elmar 135/4, CZ Aposonnar 200/2 C/Y, Leica Apo-Telyt-R 280/4, Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-I, Nikkor 800/8. The TE135 is a true classic but has no special glass and it shows badly. The other superteles are loaded with special glass but aren't fully corrected for CA when pixel-peeped with the sensors of today. Some of them have other deficiencies like horrendous b/g bokeh (AS200) or serious loss of contrast when wide open (Nikkor 300). The TAT280 has fared best over time with just some lateral color evident.