I have many 180-200mm fine primes and some very good zooms with corresponding fl,yet I regard my Apo Telyt R 180/3.4 as one of the few best.The reason is it's overall rendering,which makes up for it's unique character.
philip_pj wrote:
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 agree about the horrible bokeh and that is bad bad bad. But rest of the comment is on the edge of pathetic. With that said, I admire your posts, pictures and unreserved knowledge sharing.
As Ron said, F4IS v1 is a wonderful lens that is hard to fault.
Edit: P.S. I would like to own the 180/3.4 nevertheless.
mirkoc wrote:
I agree about the horrible bokeh and that is bad bad bad. But rest of the comment is on the edge of pathetic. With that said, I admire your posts, pictures and unreserved knowledge sharing.
As Ron said, F4IS v1 is a wonderful lens that is hard to fault.
Edit: P.S. I would like to own the 180/3.4 nevertheless.
OT, but is the rendering character of the 70-200/4 IS v2 considerably different from v1? Truthfully, I haven't much looked at reviews of the new lens, other than a few that said it's definitely sharper than its predecessors. I have a pretty large collection of lenses with a range of rendering characteristics. Probably not as extensive as some here... But I do shoot a lot with the v1 zoom and have not ever thought of it as having poor rendering.
This looks like a fantastic lens! were those shots at near infinite? Is the lens usable also at closer distances?
Regards
Peire wrote:
I have many 180-200mm fine primes and some very good zooms with corresponding fl,yet I regard my Apo Telyt R 180/3.4 as one of the few best.The reason is it's overall rendering,which makes up for it's unique character.
rscheffler wrote:
I have no complaints about using at minimum focusing distance, other than MFD is a bit far for a 180mm lens.
hanay78 wrote:
And about iq at close distance?
That's what I meant, I have no complaints about image quality at MFD. There might be a touch of spherical aberration. This is based on normal use. I haven't done comparisons against other similar lenses at near distances, therefore can't offer more than a general impression that the lens is sharp enough for my needs.
You'll probably read that this lens has been optimized for infinity performance and suffers at near distances. This is a relative thing and is probably measurable. But in normal use, I don't feel it's significant.
