My (F-mount) copy started showing some weird variations in sharpness across the frame that I thought was due to a poor copy of the lens. Then I looked through the lens as saw the 2nd to last rear element had a bunch of weird smudges on it. Had it cleaned and the sharpness came back.
Not sure what it was. Dirt, dust, fungus, etc.
It's collected some internal dust again and could use another internal CLA.
jhinkey wrote:
My (F-mount) copy started showing some weird variations in sharpness across the frame that I thought was due to a poor copy of the lens. Then I looked through the lens as saw the 2nd to last rear element had a bunch of weird smudges on it. Had it cleaned and the sharpness came back.
Not sure what it was. Dirt, dust, fungus, etc.
It's collected some internal dust again and could use another internal CLA.
Where did you send it to get cleaned? I'm interested in getting one of these lenses so it would be good to know Also, do you remember the approximate cost for the CLA?
httivals wrote:
Where did you send it to get cleaned? I'm interested in getting one of these lenses so it would be good to know Also, do you remember the approximate cost for the CLA?
EDIT: I say a great job because they went so far as to touch up the flat black paint on the rear element retaining ring where the paint in the wrench slots was slightly rubbed off from the lens wrench. They could have left the aluminum surface exposed, but they touched it up so it looks like new. Attention to detail . . . .
hanay78 wrote:
may I ask why it does not see a lot of use? you prefer other alternatives?
regards
The focal length just isn't one that I use that often. More often I'm shooting wide, or with my 50mm. Alabama is also fairly flat and filled with trees, so the applications I use telephotos most for (landscapes) aren't there as much as they were in Utah (where I used it a lot more). Has nothing to do with the lens not being good or preferring some other alternative. As far as I'm concerned, it's the best option in the range for what I would use a 200mm ish lens for.
Chris_88 wrote:
David, if you don't mind me asking, why are you selling? Lack of use?
I’m doing a bit of a sell down of my embarrassingly over stuffed dry cabinets...
In this case the APO Lanthar 180 is my travel tele. But I also have the Batis 135 which I use for travel portraits and medium tele landscape. What I’ve found is that if I am travelling I won’t take both, given that I take two wides, a normal and an 85.
So either I need to do panorama with the Lanthar to get wider, or crop the Batis for longer. But manual focus panorama is not an effective way to get portraits, even though it works fine for landscape. So the Batis stays and that means, sadly, the APO Lanthar goes...
Got a copy for a decent prize without hood. It flares a lot with the sun on the bordeof the frame. Bastian K reporta this too on his review. Any suggesrion in what hood to grab?
playing with my hands in front of the lens I did not show any reduction when hidding the lens from spotlights. Maybe are reflections with the adapter? I got cheapo k&f to try the lens
Bastian's review has a suggestion of the Nikon HS-4 in the comments, but you may want to read what is posted there and decide. I don't use a hood personally (my hand is sometimes available ).
Thanks! What do you do with reflections? I got impression in the night they are really important, and not allways i can reduced with the hand. What adapter you used?
grahamgibson wrote:
Bastian's review has a suggestion of the Nikon HS-4 in the comments, but you may want to read what is posted there and decide. I don't use a hood personally (my hand is sometimes available ).
Like Bastian, I found that no realistic amount of hand or hood shading made any difference for most flare. The dramatic rainbow flare in particular isn't going to be solved with a compact hood.
The hood part is really cheap and chintzy, so I don't bother with it, I just use the extra centimeter of plastic tubing on the end of the filter threads for finger/branch protection.
There is plenty of aftermarket bayonet hoods, like the ones of jjc. it looks like they are build to fit the systems of different manofacturers. the one you send is fitted for two flaps while voigtander have three in 120 degrees shape. Does it fit? Anybody knowns which one works for the voigtländer?
Regards and thanks
johnvanatta wrote:
Like Bastian, I found that no realistic amount of hand or hood shading made any difference for most flare. The dramatic rainbow flare in particular isn't going to be solved with a compact hood.
The hood part is really cheap and chintzy, so I don't bother with it, I just use the extra centimeter of plastic tubing on the end of the filter threads for finger/branch protection.
hanay78 wrote:
Thanks! What do you do with reflections? I got impression in the night they are really important, and not allways i can reduced with the hand. What adapter you used?
I haven’t shot much with this lens at night, so I don’t have a good strategy here. I use the K&F Concept adapter for m42.
I must have had 2 bad copies, or something, and I really wanted to like this lens (that’s why I repurchased), but I never found it that great at landscape/infinite, even when I hit focus. I did find it super particular to focus compared to other similar teles, and the lens notably lacked pop. Files felt a bit anemic without some post processing punch.
The flare could be an issue, but I was less bothered. Would love to see cv re-release this—the FL/APO/size combo is desirable. Plus, CV’s contrast, flare resistance and ergo are stellar nowadays. There’s still no great small alternatives.
Am I the only one who just couldn’t jive with the lens? Seems universally beloved.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I must have had 2 bad copies, or something, and I really wanted to like this lens (that’s why I repurchased), but I never found it that great at landscape/infinite, even when I hit focus. I did find it super particular to focus compared to other similar teles, and the lens notably lacked pop. Files felt a bit anemic without some post processing punch.
The flare could be an issue, but I was less bothered. Would love to see cv re-release this—the FL/APO/size combo is desirable. Plus, CV’s contrast, flare resistance and ergo are stellar nowadays. There’s still no great small alternatives.
Am I the only one who just couldn’t jive with the lens? Seems universally beloved.
You are not alone. I had a Pentax mount I had to de-fin in order to use it on a DsIII. I was very excited about it after reading some raves on the alt forum, which, in fairness, did warn that it was difficult to focus. I would've been fine with that if the in-focus shots were rewarding, but I actually preferred the draw from the 70-200/4 L non-IS even though it wasn't as well corrected. I was equally mystified by the 125's reputation. There were so many better macro solutions readily available for much less money.
They certainly upped their game with the 65 and 110, but I'm wondering if they can do the same with a 180 and keep it's most attractive feature intact; the size.
freaklikeme wrote:
You are not alone. I had a Pentax mount I had to de-fin in order to use it on a DsIII. I was very excited about it after reading some raves on the alt forum, which, in fairness, did warn that it was difficult to focus. I would've been fine with that if the in-focus shots were rewarding, but I actually preferred the draw from the 70-200/4 L non-IS even though it wasn't as well corrected. I was equally mystified by the 125's reputation. There were so many better macro solutions readily available for much less money.
They certainly upped their game with the 65 and 110, but I'm wondering if they can do the same with a 180 and keep it's most attractive feature intact; the size. ...Show more →
And some of us were carrying around complete Large Format kits for years. I was one of the lucky ones only carrying around a 4"X5" camera with Fujifilm Quck Load and/or Kodak Readyload holders and film with a complete battery of LF lenses.
naturephoto1 wrote:
And some of us were carrying around complete Large Format kits for years. I was one of the lucky ones only carrying around a 4"X5" camera with Fujifilm Quck Load and/or Kodak Readyload holders and film with a complete battery of LF lenses.
Rich
Same here - I carried an Ebony SV45U2 with 10 (!) lenses in a backpack for many years. Sometimes I was a real glutton for punishment and added a Linhof 617SIII in a separate hand-carried bag, but a few times cured me of doing it for long. Anything I carry now is featherweight compared to what I used to do.
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Same here - I carried an Ebony SV45U2 with 10 (!) lenses in a backpack for many years. Sometimes I was a real glutton for punishment and added a Linhof 617SIII in a separate hand-carried bag, but a few times cured me of doing it for long. Anything I carry now is featherweight compared to what I used to do.
Hi Danny,
For years my 4" X 5" camera was my 7 1/2 pound Linhof Technikardan 45S which I still have that had replaced my stolen Linhof Super Technika IV.
I tried to get a standalone hood to fit the CV's three mounting prongs, even to the point of butchering a cheap generic one, but I couldn't. If anyone finds a generic plastic hood that uses the built in prongs and reverses, let me know!
The one I linked has two parts: a screw in piece for the filter threads that has 'normal' bayonet prongs (sort of like a step up ring), and a generic plastic cup hood that mounts on those prongs. It never uses the original metal prongs. The hood piece mounts well enough in forward position, but doesn't "click" in place reversed, it just sits loosely and will rattle and fall off.
I have to have my hoods reversed for storage, so I just don't bother with it. The filter thread part adds about a centimeter of length to the lens, effectively a small plastic tube on the end. I decided that it was good enough for protection from fingers and branches, and I don't know if there's a better option for me. The testing I did indicated that the lens needed a very long hood--perhaps 10cm--to make a meaningful difference in flare performance. The longest I tried--a 5.5cm long JJC for the Olympus 60 macro (exactly the right diameter)--didn't do anything noticeable in some quick tests.
naturephoto1 wrote:
And some of us were carrying around complete Large Format kits for years. I was one of the lucky ones only carrying around a 4"X5" camera with Fujifilm Quck Load and/or Kodak Readyload holders and film with a complete battery of LF lenses.
).