I used it for a few months. I found that astigmatism limits image detail at wider apertures toward the edges, and IIRC that it flares readily & bokeh can be harsh. I like the f/4 APO much better.
I had one for a weekend but I didn't really get to form an opinion as shooting fast moving sport is not a good way to test a lens. Seemed nice, can't add much more than that.
The older 280/2.8 APO is generally considered very good, but not great vs. more modern alternatives such as the 180 APOs, the 280/4 and the Modular APO systems. The large protective front glass 'filter' is also said to hurt IQ. The latter version with teh drop-in rear filter tray is a rarer find.
I looked for one myself a year or so ago under the feeling/guidance, that for the right price it would be a nice lens, but current prices just don't make the lens worthwhile IMHO given other Leica, Mamiya, Canon, etc alternatives in roughly that FL.
I would love to see that comparison. I am willing to bet that the 280 f/4 will be sharper and if that is true and you had both lenses, then there would be little need to get the newer 180 Elmarit that works with the extender.
I would love to see that comparison. I am willing to bet that the 280 f/4 will be sharper and if that is true and you had both lenses, then there would be little need to get the newer 180 Elmarit that works with the extender.
Steve, I'd bet the same but the 180 APO Elmarit + 1.4x APO is a backup for the next time I drop the 280 and send it off for repair. The 180 + 1.4x is also a bit more versatile than a second identical 280 f/4
Yes. I love it
The colors, contrast, bokeh and the CA control is close to perfect in my book.
You can get as close as 4 feet 10 inches from your subject ( sorry Canon and Nikon and Zeiss doesn't offer this )
Plus it is the smallest and lightest amount the 180-200mm F2 lens ( even beat the new Canon 200/IS by 20g )
I have tested both Leica 1.4X APO vs Canon 1.4X mk I and mk II and Kenko pro-300 1.4 X and Canon 2X mk I and mk II converters and this lens still perform very well with all converters.
I see no advantage using Leica over Canon here.
dcmiller wrote:
O.K., how about the 180 APO f2 ? There must be some fast Leica lens you guys like........
s23chang wrote:
I have tested both Leica 1.4X APO vs Canon 1.4X mk I and mk II and Kenko pro-300 1.4 X and Canon 2X mk I and mk II converters and this lens still perform very well with all converters.
I see no advantage using Leica over Canon here.
The best thing about the Leica APO 1.4x TC is its list price: $2195
I really get a kick out of that.
dcmiller wrote:
O.K., how about the 180 APO f2 ? There must be some fast Leica lens you guys like........
Probably my favourite Leica R lens. Amazingly accurate to focus because of the long focus throw and also because it's still razor sharp wide open. I've had mine since '97 and would never part with it.
The 180/2 is bloody stellar - and whoever designed the lens's tripod mount deserved a real pat on the back. Short, fat and heavy but amazing easily to focus, amazing IQ and remarkably easy to use handheld.
Conner999 wrote:
The 180/2 is bloody stellar - and whoever designed the lens's tripod mount deserved a real pat on the back.
Good ergonomic design - such as the tripod mounts Leica has been using on their longer lenses - is difficult to quantify, and the difference it makes is difficult to demonstrate with web-sized jpg files, but IMHO often makes a big difference in a lens' usability.
I don't understand the thinking behind the tall tripod feet that nearly every other major long-lens maker is using: when on a tripod a tall tripod foot's longer lever arm between the camera's mass and the tripod head's joints makes the entire system more vibration-prone and whether on a tripod, a shoulder stock, or hand-held they make it difficult to support the lens with the left hand. The short tripod mounts on Leica lenses minimize the lever arm between the tripod head's joints and the camera's mass and enable easy, comfortable hand-held use and allow the user to support the lens while focussing manually. Whoever designed the tall tripod feet deserves a dunce cap.
I did bid on a 180/2 APO, but didn't reach the reserve minimum at my bid of $3500. I think if someone bought this lens new when the DMR was hot they have a hard time taking the loss. I've seen these lenses sell from $3000 - $3500. Considering the 200/2L is $5K I'm not willing to pay more than 3.5. Superb AF and great IS is too useful.
The Contax 200 APO is very rare and as a result VERY spendy ($5000 ish) and, from what I've read, while sharp, comes with some drawbacks re: bokeh.
Doug - agree re: average lens tripod mount - nothing short (in too many cases) of counter-productive in tripod use (small foot, long lever arm crap metal) and a real impediment to comfortable and stable hand holding
$3000 - $3500 for a clean 180/2 is a fair price. Too often people can't make the hard cut between 'market value' and what they paid for it (an irrelevant number).
I gave up looking for gear on eBay a long time ago - too many dealers/speculators who (respectively): a) seem to enjoy holding on to inventory and b) are delusional.
Don't even know why eBay has multi-day/week auctions as the only important part is that last 5 seconds and having the right sniping software. Forget the pretensions of a 'true' auction - just convert the system to 1-2 days of advertisement time and a scheduled 15 second auction ;>
the 280 and send it off for repair. The 180 + 1.4x is also a bit more versatile than a second identical 280 f/4 
