Since going digital, I haven't been able to find a 180-200mm lens that impresses me. In my film days I used a Minolta 200/2.8 APO and was always very pleased with its results. Since getting my Kodak SLR/c, I've tried two samples of the Canon 200/2.8 (both mediocre), a Nikon 200/2 AIS (a superb performer, but too large and heavy), a Leica 180/3.4 APO (great for infinity, and with substantial fall-off), Leica 180/2.8 (non APO - just OK), Olympus 180/2.8 (not too bad), and a Nikon 180/2.8 AIS (best of the bunch).
I've always considered the Angenieux, and lost a few auctions for them, but was a little wary. It's an expensive lens, and not often available. I wasn't able to find a single FF digital user who posted pics using the lens. I've seen the good and some bad from film and crop camera users. To compound the issue, much of the info gets confused with the brother of this this lens - the Angenieux 200/2.8 DEM.
Well, I finally got my hands on one. It's in great condition and the performance is exceptional across the board. My copy is exceptional from wide open at all distances. Color, contrast, bokeh, corner sharpness - its all there. And like any good lens, there is no issue on the SLR/c.
My copy is a Leica-R mount. I think it was also available in Nikon, Canon FD, and possibly even Olympus OM. An ebay seller has one in Canon EF mount, but it was modified. This lens was never released from the manufacturer in canon EF mount.
I used to have the 180/2.3 APO in the old film days. In terms of performance, even the Tamron 180/2.5 LD could surpass it, that is to say the Nikkor 180/2.8 AIS and the Canon EF 200/2.8L (mark I back then) would have surpassed it even more. The Angenieux would be a great choice if you specifically need f/2.3 at the weight of a f/2.8.
Funny you mentioned the Tamron 180/2.5, because I have owned that fairly rare lens as well. I failed to mention that one in my original post. You must have had a poor copy of the Angeniux, or more likely the film experience does not equal FF digital performance. I have owned and tested the following lenses on the same Kodak SLR/c:
Tamron 180/2.5 in Mint condition (sold)
Olympus 180/2.8 in Ex+ condition (KEH returned)
Leica 180/3.4 APO in EX+ condition (KEH returned)
Canon 200/2.8 Mark 1 in Mint- condition(KEH returned)
Canon 200/2.8 Mark II in Mint condition (sold)
Nikon 180/2.8 AIS in Mint- condition - still have it.
I found the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS to be the best of that bunch. Everything about the lens is great from wide open, all the way into the corners. The Canon EF 200/2.8's were the worst of the bunch. I wanted to like that lens because it has nice AF and works with the excellent Canon TC's - but it's just not a top performing lens. Looking at the corners of both copies it's easy to see the softness and lack of real APO correction, including lateral color fringing. The colors, bokeh, and 3D effect were also lacking. Both copies performed similarly. The Tamron 180/2.5 is sharp, but doesn't perform very well at f/2.5 and is really just a f/2.8 lens, and it doesn't work well with TC's. I also found it's colors and 3d effect lacking. The Olympus had real nice color, and good sharpness, but lateral color fringing.
At f2.3 the Angenieux performs very similar to the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS at F/2.8. That says a lot to me about it. The samples I posted are completely uncorrected for CA
Too many users try to relate film performance to FF digital performance, but in all my lens testing I haven't found it to be a 1:1 relationship.
BTW, I have a Mint- Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS lens for sale
I agree that lenses can have very different performance on film and digital cameras. I had a Tamron 180/2.5 SP, and found the SMC Pentax 200/2.5 was better. Both had excellent sharpness in the centre, but the Pentax carried it much further into the corners. I recently sold the Pentax as I found that the 135/2L with EF 1.4x Extender was better in every way, except for a bit of speed.
Good to see someone else tried the Tamron 180/2.5 on FF digital and wasn't impressed. I should add that I have the original Adaptall-EOS adapter I tested the lens with, so it wasn't an adapter issue. Now that I've thought about it some more, the Tamron 180/2.5 was worse than the Canon 200/2.8L - even when stopped down a little to f2.8. I also liked the color less. Although, the Tamron 180/2.5 was better corrected than the Canon.
FWIW: according to Patrice-Herve Pont: "Angenieux - made in Saint-Heand, Loire, France" (Editions du Pecari, 2nd ed., 2003), a total of 4000 180/2.3 APO lenses were produced from 1986 to 1992 in Canon, Contax, Leica R and Nikon AiS mount. There were plans to also bring out Pentax and Olympus versions, which, however, never were realized.
Dr Ding seems to have owned all the 180/200's there are including the f/2's.
Here's what he has to say: "in my opinion, the Olympus OM 180mm/2 ED, and the Leica 180/2 APO are among the best of the bests...Another great 180mm lens is the Angenieux DEM 180/2.3 APO. This is a must have if you are a real 180-fan." He also likes the Nikon 180/2.8's and the Zuiko 180/2.8. He seems to have used them with film only.
More info about the lens and its 200mm counterpart. Apparently, the lens is full of high refractive index and LD glass. Only the front element is regular optical glass. It also shows the lens was designed very well for close focus and infinity in mind, and has minimal distortion, spherical aberrations, and astigmatism (translated from Italian):
My friend used to have a 180/2.3 apo. I borrowed and tested it in many ways. At medium to infinity, its performance is significantly below a Leica 180/3.4. I also noticed the 180/2.3 APO tend to have green tone on every scenes, just like the 45-90/2.8 zoom.
I've found the Angenieux color to be very well balanced, much like the very best Zuiko's. In comparison, I've found Leica to have a pink/yellow tone, and Zeiss a (cool) blue/saturated red tone. The Angenieux also has a very natural contrast, while still exhibiting a nice pop. My Kodak SLR/c has excellent color. If a lens has a tone to it I spot it readily. I'm not seeing it.
The Leica 180/3.4 APO was APO designed specifically for infinity, so I wouldn't be surprised it does a little better. I've had one and wasn't impressed to use it as a general purpose lens. It's too slow, vignettes too much wide open, close up performance is poor, it doesn't focus very close. I use a 180 lens more for close-up than I do at infinity. The shot of the metal grating above was taken at about 100meters and wide open. Look at the corner crop! That's all I need, and much better than the Leica 180/3.4 at f2.3
angenieux 35-70 tested against zeiss 35/1.4. its like day and night. forget angenieux 35-70. or i had a bottle-glass. zeiss resolution/sharpness is sensational. very few light-fall of at 2.0. i will get again a 35/1.4 and be used on eos-hopefully an the new FF. i have data-sheets of both 180 and 200 angenieux. just want to mention that the owner of lux technologies france worked for angenieux. lux developped a 12 and 15mm affordable leica-lens. m-39
What mount did you get this in? I've had an Angenieux 35-70 f2.5 zoom for years in a Canon EF mount. I'm guessing Nikon mount?
i also have data-sheet. of 28-70 too.
