This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009180-200mm options?
p.1 #1180-200mm options?
There seems to be very little information (recent information, not way old) available about Carl Zeiss 180mm and 200mm lenses. Only thing I find is people saying that over 100mm it's not worth the effort to use Zeiss lenses and many people seem to thing that over 100mm Canons are OK.
Reason why I'm asking is that I have been going through my 180-200mm photos with Canon EF180mm f/3.5 L USM and Canon EF200mm f/2.8 L USM mkII and somehow they lack something, which the Zeiss photos have. Also both of the Canons are much larger than I would like 180-200mm landscape / nature lens to be.
Today I shoot comparison shots with 200/2.8L and Makro-Planar 2/100 and it become evident that 200/2.8L is sharp lens, but micro contrast and "pop" is missing from pictures.
180L is little better in micro contrast and "pop" but still not at same level as Zeiss lenses, specially considing that even using live view the focusing is next to impossible for too short focus throw on non-macro shooting.
I would like to hear some opinions of following lenses:
Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 C/Y
Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 4/200 C/Y
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/180 C/Y
Please comment if you have shoot with these 3 lenses do they have "Zeiss look" or not? Also I'm pleased to hear any opinions and pros and cons about these three lenses.
If thinking out-of-the-box (the Zeiss box in my head...) I could see few options with their own pros and cons:
Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 - would fulfill my need but it's extreme difficult to find
Leica APO Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4 - too expensive, too large, not good at close distances
Any recommendations of other alternative lenses? 180-200mm + f/4 or faster, doesn't matter as long as f/5.6 is sharp + small size preferred.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Reason why I'm asking is that I have been going through my 180-200mm photos with Canon EF180mm f/3.5 L USM and Canon EF200mm f/2.8 L USM mkII and somehow they lack something, which the Zeiss photos have. Also both of the Canons are much larger than I would like 180-200mm landscape / nature lens to be.
Today I shoot comparison shots with 200/2.8L and Makro-Planar 2/100 and it become evident that 200/2.8L is sharp lens, but micro contrast and "pop" is missing from pictures.
180L is little better in micro contrast and "pop" but still not at same level as Zeiss lenses, specially considing that even using live view the focusing is next to impossible for too short focus throw on non-macro shooting.
I would like to hear some opinions of following lenses:
Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 C/Y
Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 4/200 C/Y
Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/180 C/Y
Please comment if you have shoot with these 3 lenses do they have "Zeiss look" or not? Also I'm pleased to hear any opinions and pros and cons about these three lenses.
If thinking out-of-the-box (the Zeiss box in my head...) I could see few options with their own pros and cons:
Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 - would fulfill my need but it's extreme difficult to find
Leica APO Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4 - too expensive, too large, not good at close distances
Any recommendations of other alternative lenses? 180-200mm + f/4 or faster, doesn't matter as long as f/5.6 is sharp + small size preferred.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Feb 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM
p.1 #2180-200mm options?
I use the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 CF ED on my 5D for travel - it's fantastically sharp in good light, or on a tripod. The rest of the time, it's either an L-zoom or the 135/2L with EF 1.4x Extender. The 135/2L + EF1.4x is noticably better than both the highly regarded Tamron SP 180/2.5 and the even better SMC Pentax 200/2.5 Maybe you could borrow an Extender from somebody and try it, you might like it.
Feb 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM
p.1 #3180-200mm options?
Jim thanks for comment. I have 135L and 1.4x mkII (have to edit profile, just removed all accessories from there - have to add extenders back there). I find this combination worse than 180L or 200L. Actually I find 200/2.8L better than 135L when both are without extender, and when extender is used 200/2.8L takes it much better due, almost as well as 300/2.8L does. At f/5.6 I find 200/2.8L one of the few Canon lenses delivering even some amount of micro contrast.
When my subjects is sports I really like 135L and 200/2.8L - typically in those situations there is no need for micro contrast and the lenses do just fine. However 180-200mm used outside events/sports is typically city pictures of cities with tele compression (lots of textures in walls and roofs - high need for micro contrast) or nature details in forests/parts. In this kind of photography I find "Zeiss look" preferrable for my photos.
When my subjects is sports I really like 135L and 200/2.8L - typically in those situations there is no need for micro contrast and the lenses do just fine. However 180-200mm used outside events/sports is typically city pictures of cities with tele compression (lots of textures in walls and roofs - high need for micro contrast) or nature details in forests/parts. In this kind of photography I find "Zeiss look" preferrable for my photos.
Feb 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM
p.1 #4180-200mm options?
Nikkor 180 2,8 ais ed or af version.
It's sharp, with very pleasure 3d effect, very good coating and smooth bokeh.
And It's cheapier than 180 2,8 zeiss.
I've used 200 2,8 canon and 180 2,8 zeiss and the winner for me is nikon.
And I'm a zeiss lovers... when I born my first pict was taken by exacta with zeiss lens and I grow up with contax gear.
It's sharp, with very pleasure 3d effect, very good coating and smooth bokeh.
And It's cheapier than 180 2,8 zeiss.
I've used 200 2,8 canon and 180 2,8 zeiss and the winner for me is nikon.
And I'm a zeiss lovers... when I born my first pict was taken by exacta with zeiss lens and I grow up with contax gear.
Feb 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM
p.1 #5180-200mm options?
nikarlo wrote:
Nikkor 180 2,8 ais ed or af version.
It's sharp, with very pleasure 3d effect, very good coating and smooth bokeh.
And It's cheapier than 180 2,8 zeiss.
I've used 200 2,8 canon and 180 2,8 zeiss and the winner for me is nikon.
Carlo, thanks for reply. I spent some time checking 180 Nikkor photos (pbase, flickr) and you were right this lens seems to have some 3d effect. Also found many pictures with LoCa on bokeh (e.g. white highlight behind of the focal plane got green edge). The ones I found were about the same as Contax 2.8/180 or more expensive, for example in keh.com
nikarlo wrote:
And I'm a zeiss lovers... when I born my first pict was taken by exacta with zeiss lens and I grow up with contax gear.
Interesting, I should be Pentax lover following this logic
Nikkor 180 2,8 ais ed or af version.
It's sharp, with very pleasure 3d effect, very good coating and smooth bokeh.
And It's cheapier than 180 2,8 zeiss.
I've used 200 2,8 canon and 180 2,8 zeiss and the winner for me is nikon.
Carlo, thanks for reply. I spent some time checking 180 Nikkor photos (pbase, flickr) and you were right this lens seems to have some 3d effect. Also found many pictures with LoCa on bokeh (e.g. white highlight behind of the focal plane got green edge). The ones I found were about the same as Contax 2.8/180 or more expensive, for example in keh.com
nikarlo wrote:
And I'm a zeiss lovers... when I born my first pict was taken by exacta with zeiss lens and I grow up with contax gear.
Interesting, I should be Pentax lover following this logic
Feb 21, 2009 at 02:20 PM
p.1 #6180-200mm options?
Conner, thanks for reply.
Voigtlander 180 was (is...) my primary selection for this purpose - however availability of this lens is very poor, if nobody isn't selling, can't buy one... Therefore I started to search another alternatives. And generally liking Zeiss was interested if their teles would offer something similar as their shorter lenses. I have been studuing the Zeiss MTFs (btw. in addition to English you may need to look at Zeiss Germany for example for Tele-Tessar 4/200 and Sonnar 3.5/100 which do not exist in English page) few weeks before starting this thread. It seems that Sonnar optical design doesn't work very well at such long focal length (180mm). Both (f/3.5 and f/4) of the Tele-Tessar design seem to work much better but seems to be good only targets which are sagittal and sucks for tangential targets. Based on the MTF is clear that Sonnar 2.8/180 is not real contender at 180-200mm lens class. However 200 Tele-Tessars seem to have better MTFs than the 180 Sonnar. If anybody has experience with Tele-Tessars I'm very interested to hear about.
Mamiya would be great if it would not be so massive, front weighted and would have tripod collar. Also it's availability ain't that good.
So there remains Leica APO Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4, everybody says performance excellent at infinity but not so good at close distances. What this means in practice?
Voigtlander 180 was (is...) my primary selection for this purpose - however availability of this lens is very poor, if nobody isn't selling, can't buy one... Therefore I started to search another alternatives. And generally liking Zeiss was interested if their teles would offer something similar as their shorter lenses. I have been studuing the Zeiss MTFs (btw. in addition to English you may need to look at Zeiss Germany for example for Tele-Tessar 4/200 and Sonnar 3.5/100 which do not exist in English page) few weeks before starting this thread. It seems that Sonnar optical design doesn't work very well at such long focal length (180mm). Both (f/3.5 and f/4) of the Tele-Tessar design seem to work much better but seems to be good only targets which are sagittal and sucks for tangential targets. Based on the MTF is clear that Sonnar 2.8/180 is not real contender at 180-200mm lens class. However 200 Tele-Tessars seem to have better MTFs than the 180 Sonnar. If anybody has experience with Tele-Tessars I'm very interested to hear about.
Mamiya would be great if it would not be so massive, front weighted and would have tripod collar. Also it's availability ain't that good.
So there remains Leica APO Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4, everybody says performance excellent at infinity but not so good at close distances. What this means in practice?
- is the image quality excellent from infinity to 10 meters/30 feet and get's when closer than that or ...
- ...is it really so that in order to achieve good image quality one needs to photograph subjects which are 100meters/300feet away and focusing to subjects closer will result bad image quality
Feb 21, 2009 at 03:28 PM
p.1 #7180-200mm options?
Samuli,
Your welcome.
1. 180/4 - keep your eyes open. I found one last week at a good price (my 2nd, having stupidly sold the first). You also have the option of AiS, M42 or OM mount as well. Focus is stiff new but loosens up nicely. Judging from the sheer stupidity that has been happening with CV 125 prices, the 90 and 180 are incredible bargains - for now anyway.
2. The Mamiya is a sweet lens, but, as you say, comes with some 'ergonomic shortcomings'. KEH usually has one every once and awhile. Can also try FFordes in UK.
3. The 180/3.4. To get the best out of the lens you need to be in infinity territory. Going off memory here, but at the 10M mark or shorter, I'd call the resolution on par or slightly better than the Nikon with the Leica having an edge WO. APO control and bokeh in the Leica's favor. As you bump up against and get to infinity the resolution jumps to that famous Leica APO level.
I liked the copy I tested, but since I normally don't shoot near infinity, it's performance otherwise didn't leave me wanting one. As a 180mm landscape lens, it would be brilliant. Focus can be a little stiff with some copies.
Another lens I forgot which has a very strong rep is the Leica 80-200/4. I've used it's shorter 35-70/4 sister and it's a remarkable zoom. There's a copy for sale from someone in B&S for under $700 IIRC.
Your welcome.
1. 180/4 - keep your eyes open. I found one last week at a good price (my 2nd, having stupidly sold the first). You also have the option of AiS, M42 or OM mount as well. Focus is stiff new but loosens up nicely. Judging from the sheer stupidity that has been happening with CV 125 prices, the 90 and 180 are incredible bargains - for now anyway.
2. The Mamiya is a sweet lens, but, as you say, comes with some 'ergonomic shortcomings'. KEH usually has one every once and awhile. Can also try FFordes in UK.
3. The 180/3.4. To get the best out of the lens you need to be in infinity territory. Going off memory here, but at the 10M mark or shorter, I'd call the resolution on par or slightly better than the Nikon with the Leica having an edge WO. APO control and bokeh in the Leica's favor. As you bump up against and get to infinity the resolution jumps to that famous Leica APO level.
I liked the copy I tested, but since I normally don't shoot near infinity, it's performance otherwise didn't leave me wanting one. As a 180mm landscape lens, it would be brilliant. Focus can be a little stiff with some copies.
Another lens I forgot which has a very strong rep is the Leica 80-200/4. I've used it's shorter 35-70/4 sister and it's a remarkable zoom. There's a copy for sale from someone in B&S for under $700 IIRC.
Feb 21, 2009 at 03:43 PM
p.1 #8180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
You also have the option of AiS, M42 or OM mount as well.
Missed one because it was M42, thinking that there will be shortly available in F-mount. Later thinking it, I feel really stupid...
Conner999 wrote:
...the 90 and 180 are incredible bargains - for now anyway.
Even I have Canon 85 1.2/1.8 and 100/2.8, Leica Elmarit 90, Zeiss Makro-Planar 100 & Sonnar 100 I feel tempted to get also Voigtlander APO Lanthar 90/3.5. For such slow lens this image is very extraordinary - lools like the contrast in focal plane is higher than in bokeh and this gives pretty special look to the images.
Conner999 wrote:
3. The 180/3.4. To get the best out of the lens you need to be in infinity territory. Going off memory here, but at the 10M mark or shorter, I'd call the resolution on par or slightly better than the Nikon with the Leica having an edge WO. APO control and bokeh in the Leica's favor. As you bump up against and get to infinity the resolution jumps to that famous Leica APO level.
So does this mean that the performanca at 10m is excellent at f/5.6 or f/8? In princible I would be happy with f/5.6 lens if it would give Voigtlander 180@f/5.6 results at f/5.6. For shooting where I need large aperture I will most probably also need AF, and then Canon 200/2.8L will do just fine.
You also have the option of AiS, M42 or OM mount as well.
Missed one because it was M42, thinking that there will be shortly available in F-mount. Later thinking it, I feel really stupid...
Conner999 wrote:
...the 90 and 180 are incredible bargains - for now anyway.
Even I have Canon 85 1.2/1.8 and 100/2.8, Leica Elmarit 90, Zeiss Makro-Planar 100 & Sonnar 100 I feel tempted to get also Voigtlander APO Lanthar 90/3.5. For such slow lens this image is very extraordinary - lools like the contrast in focal plane is higher than in bokeh and this gives pretty special look to the images.
Conner999 wrote:
3. The 180/3.4. To get the best out of the lens you need to be in infinity territory. Going off memory here, but at the 10M mark or shorter, I'd call the resolution on par or slightly better than the Nikon with the Leica having an edge WO. APO control and bokeh in the Leica's favor. As you bump up against and get to infinity the resolution jumps to that famous Leica APO level.
So does this mean that the performanca at 10m is excellent at f/5.6 or f/8? In princible I would be happy with f/5.6 lens if it would give Voigtlander 180@f/5.6 results at f/5.6. For shooting where I need large aperture I will most probably also need AF, and then Canon 200/2.8L will do just fine.
Feb 21, 2009 at 04:18 PM
p.1 #9180-200mm options?
I had the Contax 180/2.8 for a few years and to be honest I was never really impressed by it. It was OK in every respect but there was nothing about it that made it stand out in any way. I had a Nikon 180/2.8 ED Ais at about the same time and neither lens stood out to me, but both were OK.
I have the Leica R 180/3.4 and I do love this lens but I don't use it for portrait work, just long distance stuff. Resolution is amazing but it does vignette a bit but I like that, others may not. I also have the Leica R 180/2 but can't part with the 180/3.4 because they have different applications.
JJ
I have the Leica R 180/3.4 and I do love this lens but I don't use it for portrait work, just long distance stuff. Resolution is amazing but it does vignette a bit but I like that, others may not. I also have the Leica R 180/2 but can't part with the 180/3.4 because they have different applications.
JJ
Feb 21, 2009 at 09:14 PM
p.1 #10180-200mm options?
I have a near mint sharp copy of the Leica 180/3.4 Telyt on the B&S. Being the smallest 180-200mm lens I've owned, I wouldn't say it is too large. It does cost more than a Canon 200/2.8, but it's a fairly modest amount to pay for the additional IQ gained at all apertures. I've also heard this lens gets a little soft at close focus distances, but it still seems to outresolve my sensor even at close distances.
I also have a Leica 80-200/4 on thr B&S. This lens is a landscaper's dream. It's sharp across the frame at all apertures and focal lenths. I've addedd a Canon tripod mount to it, which was a big plus for my landscape work.
Picking between these two lenses is not easy. The prime will have a little more contrast, and sharpness at times, but the 80-200 still produces top notch results and is more versatile. If I didn't need the money I wouldn't be selling either. Since I also have a couple 85 and 135mm primes, and a Angenieux 180/2.3, something has to go (besides my marriage)
I also have a Leica 80-200/4 on thr B&S. This lens is a landscaper's dream. It's sharp across the frame at all apertures and focal lenths. I've addedd a Canon tripod mount to it, which was a big plus for my landscape work.
Picking between these two lenses is not easy. The prime will have a little more contrast, and sharpness at times, but the 80-200 still produces top notch results and is more versatile. If I didn't need the money I wouldn't be selling either. Since I also have a couple 85 and 135mm primes, and a Angenieux 180/2.3, something has to go (besides my marriage)
Feb 21, 2009 at 09:47 PM
p.1 #11180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
Another lens I forgot which has a very strong rep is the Leica 80-200/4. I've used it's shorter 35-70/4 sister and it's a remarkable zoom.
and
pdmphoto wrote:
...I also have a Leica 80-200/4 on thr B&S. This lens is a landscaper's dream. It's sharp across the frame at all apertures and focal lenths....
Interesting - based on the MTFs Contax Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 has similar MTF as Leica 80-200/4 (photodo.mtf). Everybody who has used Sonnar 180 things it's not very good, but based on MTFs it's clear Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 is better than the Sonnar to which everybody bases their opinion that Zeiss sucks at teles:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090222.gif
Maybe I have to sacrifice and test the Contax Tele-Tessar since there seems very little information available in addition to Zeiss 2 page PDF, almost like no one ever used the lens.
pdmphoto wrote:
I have a near mint sharp copy of the Leica 180/3.4 Telyt on the B&S. Being the smallest 180-200mm lens I've owned, I wouldn't say it is too large.
I have not yet find dimensions of this lens, and I think I misunderstood based something I did read from photo.net that this lens would be large and heavy, but I have obviously misunderstood. Cannot find any real good information about the "non-infinity" lower image quality, it may be non-meaningful for me if it's OK at f/5.6-f/8. Also there are some people having bokeh quality problems with Telyt. Too many unknowns and hard to find info since many good things are "archived" e.g. Alternative Image Thread 1&2, DMR thread etc. - should have saved to my own computer when they still were available.
Another lens I forgot which has a very strong rep is the Leica 80-200/4. I've used it's shorter 35-70/4 sister and it's a remarkable zoom.
and
pdmphoto wrote:
...I also have a Leica 80-200/4 on thr B&S. This lens is a landscaper's dream. It's sharp across the frame at all apertures and focal lenths....
Interesting - based on the MTFs Contax Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 has similar MTF as Leica 80-200/4 (photodo.mtf). Everybody who has used Sonnar 180 things it's not very good, but based on MTFs it's clear Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 is better than the Sonnar to which everybody bases their opinion that Zeiss sucks at teles:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090222.gif
Maybe I have to sacrifice and test the Contax Tele-Tessar since there seems very little information available in addition to Zeiss 2 page PDF, almost like no one ever used the lens.
pdmphoto wrote:
I have a near mint sharp copy of the Leica 180/3.4 Telyt on the B&S. Being the smallest 180-200mm lens I've owned, I wouldn't say it is too large.
I have not yet find dimensions of this lens, and I think I misunderstood based something I did read from photo.net that this lens would be large and heavy, but I have obviously misunderstood. Cannot find any real good information about the "non-infinity" lower image quality, it may be non-meaningful for me if it's OK at f/5.6-f/8. Also there are some people having bokeh quality problems with Telyt. Too many unknowns and hard to find info since many good things are "archived" e.g. Alternative Image Thread 1&2, DMR thread etc. - should have saved to my own computer when they still were available.
Feb 22, 2009 at 03:19 AM
p.1 #12180-200mm options?
Terve Samuli, Henrik from Stockholm here.
I have shot with all of those lenses you mention:
The Zeiss 200/3.5 is chunky, but also very good optically. Maybe not as good at or near infinity as on medium distances. I was quite happy with it. And it was very crisp close up.
The Zeiss 200/4 is light, 55mm filter thread, but it was not good at all wide open. I would say it is almost useless wide open, and I tried two copies. Effectively it is a f5.6 lens and therefore not so interesting enymore. Stopped down it was good though.
The Zeiss 80-200/4 was somewhat similar in performance and approx. same weight, but I much preferred the zoom to the fixed 200/4. The one thing I didn't like with the zoom is that it is push-pull and in many cases I thought I knocked the critical focus out when recomposing and it was a little awkward for me. The Canon 70-200/4L is equally as good (IMO, I had a great copy) but the Zeiss lens seemed more color neutral.
The Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 was a lens I wanted to like, but it was lagging behind at wide open and didn't deliver until around f5.6. Most other 180 APO/ED lenses I have tried outperformed the Sonnar, including Nikon and Canon offerings.
Insted I reached for the Planar 135/2 at the time, though it was somewhat soft wide open. Stopped down it was gorgeous. It was (together with the D21) my most exotic lens and though it wasn't perfect I really enjoyed it.
The Sonnar 135/2.8 looks stunning on paper but I could never make it work for me, and I tried a few copies and the result was bland in comparison with most of the above lenses for landscape shots.
The Leica APO-Telyt 180/3.4 I prefer to all above lenses, but only for distant shots. I made the decision of keeping the lens because I figured I would only use it for distant shots and to my surprise it works out perfect for me - it stays in the pouch until there is a distant shot. It is also excellent at mid distance, it is just not as good up close, but then again when you are that close you can do with another lens, like a 90/100mm and take two steps closer.
The Leica APO Elmarit 180/2.8 bested all the above lenses, it was not better than the APO-Telyt at far (not that I could see) but I found the focusing mechanism to loose for my taste, so I didn't keep it.
The Voigtländer APO 125/2.5 was a great lens, though I only had it for half a year or so, as it was around that time I ditched the Contax outfit. Bokeh was the best of all lenses though for some distant shots I found it lacked microdetail when compared to the APO Telyt 180/3.4 and APO Elmarit 180/2.8, though the latter was a lens I never held in direct comparison to the Voigtländer. The 125/2.5 is superb close up but then again, the focal length is a bit short of the 200mm mark, and I have other lenses around 100mm so I actually turned down an offer on a 125/2.5 lens not long ago.
I am sure the Voigtländer 180/4 is a great, and compact, lens though I really don't like the out of focus rendering of it, especially close up. It doesn't look good to me for people shots so I would probably end up using it for distant shots/landscapes only and there I already have the APO Telyt 180 which serves well with the same shortcomings.
One of the few lenses in this range I haven't tried out is the Leica 80-200/4 (apparently made to order by Kyocera/Zeiss for Leica with Leica glass and specs) which judging from what I have seen seems to be a superb zoom in every aspect. I am tempted by it because it could be a very sweet three lens traveling set up: 28/60/80-200. I was going with 28/60/135 before and I am making do with 28/60/180 now but the versatility of a great zoom is tempting, for sure.
If I can think of anything else I will post it shortly.
Näkemiin.
If you want to I can scan some Zeiss 200/3.5 shots this afternoon and post.
I have shot with all of those lenses you mention:
The Zeiss 200/3.5 is chunky, but also very good optically. Maybe not as good at or near infinity as on medium distances. I was quite happy with it. And it was very crisp close up.
The Zeiss 200/4 is light, 55mm filter thread, but it was not good at all wide open. I would say it is almost useless wide open, and I tried two copies. Effectively it is a f5.6 lens and therefore not so interesting enymore. Stopped down it was good though.
The Zeiss 80-200/4 was somewhat similar in performance and approx. same weight, but I much preferred the zoom to the fixed 200/4. The one thing I didn't like with the zoom is that it is push-pull and in many cases I thought I knocked the critical focus out when recomposing and it was a little awkward for me. The Canon 70-200/4L is equally as good (IMO, I had a great copy) but the Zeiss lens seemed more color neutral.
The Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 was a lens I wanted to like, but it was lagging behind at wide open and didn't deliver until around f5.6. Most other 180 APO/ED lenses I have tried outperformed the Sonnar, including Nikon and Canon offerings.
Insted I reached for the Planar 135/2 at the time, though it was somewhat soft wide open. Stopped down it was gorgeous. It was (together with the D21) my most exotic lens and though it wasn't perfect I really enjoyed it.
The Sonnar 135/2.8 looks stunning on paper but I could never make it work for me, and I tried a few copies and the result was bland in comparison with most of the above lenses for landscape shots.
The Leica APO-Telyt 180/3.4 I prefer to all above lenses, but only for distant shots. I made the decision of keeping the lens because I figured I would only use it for distant shots and to my surprise it works out perfect for me - it stays in the pouch until there is a distant shot. It is also excellent at mid distance, it is just not as good up close, but then again when you are that close you can do with another lens, like a 90/100mm and take two steps closer.
The Leica APO Elmarit 180/2.8 bested all the above lenses, it was not better than the APO-Telyt at far (not that I could see) but I found the focusing mechanism to loose for my taste, so I didn't keep it.
The Voigtländer APO 125/2.5 was a great lens, though I only had it for half a year or so, as it was around that time I ditched the Contax outfit. Bokeh was the best of all lenses though for some distant shots I found it lacked microdetail when compared to the APO Telyt 180/3.4 and APO Elmarit 180/2.8, though the latter was a lens I never held in direct comparison to the Voigtländer. The 125/2.5 is superb close up but then again, the focal length is a bit short of the 200mm mark, and I have other lenses around 100mm so I actually turned down an offer on a 125/2.5 lens not long ago.
I am sure the Voigtländer 180/4 is a great, and compact, lens though I really don't like the out of focus rendering of it, especially close up. It doesn't look good to me for people shots so I would probably end up using it for distant shots/landscapes only and there I already have the APO Telyt 180 which serves well with the same shortcomings.
One of the few lenses in this range I haven't tried out is the Leica 80-200/4 (apparently made to order by Kyocera/Zeiss for Leica with Leica glass and specs) which judging from what I have seen seems to be a superb zoom in every aspect. I am tempted by it because it could be a very sweet three lens traveling set up: 28/60/80-200. I was going with 28/60/135 before and I am making do with 28/60/180 now but the versatility of a great zoom is tempting, for sure.
If I can think of anything else I will post it shortly.
Näkemiin.
If you want to I can scan some Zeiss 200/3.5 shots this afternoon and post.
Feb 22, 2009 at 03:40 AM
p.1 #13180-200mm options?
Hejssan Henrik, thanks for the info, didn't remember that you did shoot with almost all Zeiss lenses! BTW. Leica Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 still in use, thou not so often since I'm mainly using Makro-Planar 2/100.
kosmoskatten wrote:
The Zeiss 200/3.5 is chunky, but also very good optically. Maybe not as good at or near infinity as on medium distances. I was quite happy with it. And it was very crisp close up.
The Zeiss 200/4 is light, 55mm filter thread, but it was not good at all wide open. I would say it is almost useless wide open, and I tried two copies. Effectively it is a f5.6 lens and therefore not so interesting enymore. Stopped down it was good though.
In MTFs there is not so much difference between Tele-Tessar 3.5 and 4.0:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090222b.gif
Your usage for Telyt-R 180/3.4 makes sense - I think I could live with with same principle but I also if Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 could draw with the traditional Zeiss "look" I'm tempted to get that one. I'm still stuck at 1.3x crop, and I have feeling that when moving again to fullframe I may feel need to use these medium teles at close and medium distances more than I do now. In fullframe 100mm gets so "wide" that it doesn't anymore flatten the perspective as much as does now with 1.3x crop, in many cases I prefer more flattened perspective.
For travelling Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Makro-Planar 2/100 and Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 would be interesting combination - all have 67mm filters as well. Very tempting...with alternative lenses the problem is always that there are multiple options to choose from.
kosmoskatten wrote:
If you want to I can scan some Zeiss 200/3.5 shots this afternoon and post.
That would be interesting to see if that is not too big effort for you - if 3.5/200 has the typical Zeiss "look" in the images I'll have no other choice than to buy it... No longer film scanning for me - I found out few months ago that my film scanner had died, luckily I did shoot only two years to film, before EOS D30 changed the DSLR pricing, and I have scanned my most interesting shots.
kosmoskatten wrote:
The Zeiss 200/3.5 is chunky, but also very good optically. Maybe not as good at or near infinity as on medium distances. I was quite happy with it. And it was very crisp close up.
The Zeiss 200/4 is light, 55mm filter thread, but it was not good at all wide open. I would say it is almost useless wide open, and I tried two copies. Effectively it is a f5.6 lens and therefore not so interesting enymore. Stopped down it was good though.
In MTFs there is not so much difference between Tele-Tessar 3.5 and 4.0:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090222b.gif
Your usage for Telyt-R 180/3.4 makes sense - I think I could live with with same principle but I also if Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 could draw with the traditional Zeiss "look" I'm tempted to get that one. I'm still stuck at 1.3x crop, and I have feeling that when moving again to fullframe I may feel need to use these medium teles at close and medium distances more than I do now. In fullframe 100mm gets so "wide" that it doesn't anymore flatten the perspective as much as does now with 1.3x crop, in many cases I prefer more flattened perspective.
For travelling Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Makro-Planar 2/100 and Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 would be interesting combination - all have 67mm filters as well. Very tempting...with alternative lenses the problem is always that there are multiple options to choose from.
kosmoskatten wrote:
If you want to I can scan some Zeiss 200/3.5 shots this afternoon and post.
That would be interesting to see if that is not too big effort for you - if 3.5/200 has the typical Zeiss "look" in the images I'll have no other choice than to buy it... No longer film scanning for me - I found out few months ago that my film scanner had died, luckily I did shoot only two years to film, before EOS D30 changed the DSLR pricing, and I have scanned my most interesting shots.
Feb 22, 2009 at 04:31 AM
p.1 #14180-200mm options?
And yes, it seems the 200/3.5 is quite rare. I remember I got paid quite a lot for it - almost 1.5x what I paid when I acquired it. The filter diameter was 67 (EDIT: I saw you already knew the filter diamaeter) and the lens is a bit chunky.
The 180/3.4 APO Telyt is smaller, in footprint, but almost equal in weight. It is heavier than it looks but I don't consider it a big chunk. Think small, but dense.
PS
I found some pics from Australia taken with the 200/3.5, most are slides but I can scan a few of the prints I made from color negatives. Will try and get back in a few hours (scanner is tucked away under a pile of prints...)
Check back in four hours or so, it is 11.30 here in Sweden and three o'clock I will have some close ups ready for you, no sweat!
The 180/3.4 APO Telyt is smaller, in footprint, but almost equal in weight. It is heavier than it looks but I don't consider it a big chunk. Think small, but dense.
PS
I found some pics from Australia taken with the 200/3.5, most are slides but I can scan a few of the prints I made from color negatives. Will try and get back in a few hours (scanner is tucked away under a pile of prints...)
Check back in four hours or so, it is 11.30 here in Sweden and three o'clock I will have some close ups ready for you, no sweat!
Feb 22, 2009 at 04:31 AM
p.1 #15180-200mm options?
About the 200/3.5 versus 200/4:
Yes, I was very surprised that the newer 200/4 would not be as sharp as the older 3.5.
Though if I try really hard I can think of very few occasions where I have used the 3.5 wide open at infinity, probably not often, if at all. I got the feeling that the 3.5 was better at close range though.
The same day I got the 200/4 I tested it wide open and stopped down, I was let down by the wide open performance so I reshot the test (with another lens as well) only to find out it was soft wide open on distant shots but one stop down, f5.6, it snapped into place.
Stopped down at infinity both the f3.5 and f4 were sound performers.
Yes, I was very surprised that the newer 200/4 would not be as sharp as the older 3.5.
Though if I try really hard I can think of very few occasions where I have used the 3.5 wide open at infinity, probably not often, if at all. I got the feeling that the 3.5 was better at close range though.
The same day I got the 200/4 I tested it wide open and stopped down, I was let down by the wide open performance so I reshot the test (with another lens as well) only to find out it was soft wide open on distant shots but one stop down, f5.6, it snapped into place.
Stopped down at infinity both the f3.5 and f4 were sound performers.
Feb 22, 2009 at 04:38 AM
p.1 #16180-200mm options?
kosmoskatten wrote:
And yes, it seems the 200/3.5 is quite rare. I remember I got paid quite a lot for it - almost 1.5x what I paid when I acquired it. The filter diameter was 67 (EDIT: I saw you already knew the filter diamaeter) and the lens is a bit chunky.
Today's situation is slightly different - it seems that there are quite many 3.5/200 for sale. Based on the drawings in Zeiss PDFs 3.5/200 is pretty chunky, but it's only 122mm from the lens mount so it's still very modest size (for reference Canon 200/2.8L is ~140/~200mm depending if the hood is included).
kosmoskatten wrote:
Though if I try really hard I can think of very few occasions where I have used the 3.5 wide open at infinity, probably not often, if at all. I got the feeling that the 3.5 was better at close range though.
Usually infinity is not shot wide open - why would one do that, other than lens testing purposes.
Typically I find that I get most Zeiss "look" from images when the background is not completly blurred. Therefore I don't think I will shoot this 180-200mm range much other apertures than f/5.6-11. For shorter focal lengths wider apertures are needed to achieve the three dimensional look I'm after in my photos. To me the Zeiss "look" is mostly created by certain bokeh quality and sharp transition from focal plane to bokeh. Problematic thing is when subject is far away (e.g. 15 meters/45 feet) I have to use very large aperture, for example Makro-Planar 2/100 performs excellently in this kind of photos since it's sharp already at f/2. If I need to do make subject to "pop" from background at longer distances and longer focal lengths I can use Canon 300/2.8L for that, however this lens is not suitable for travelling - also would not like to shoot with it at streets etc. crowded places...
kosmoskatten wrote:
Check back in four hours or so, it is 11.30 here in Sweden and three o'clock I will have some close ups ready for you, no sweat!
Thank you very much, I'll have to leave at 5PM (4PM your time), but I'm back online at Monday evening.
And yes, it seems the 200/3.5 is quite rare. I remember I got paid quite a lot for it - almost 1.5x what I paid when I acquired it. The filter diameter was 67 (EDIT: I saw you already knew the filter diamaeter) and the lens is a bit chunky.
Today's situation is slightly different - it seems that there are quite many 3.5/200 for sale. Based on the drawings in Zeiss PDFs 3.5/200 is pretty chunky, but it's only 122mm from the lens mount so it's still very modest size (for reference Canon 200/2.8L is ~140/~200mm depending if the hood is included).
kosmoskatten wrote:
Though if I try really hard I can think of very few occasions where I have used the 3.5 wide open at infinity, probably not often, if at all. I got the feeling that the 3.5 was better at close range though.
Usually infinity is not shot wide open - why would one do that, other than lens testing purposes.
Typically I find that I get most Zeiss "look" from images when the background is not completly blurred. Therefore I don't think I will shoot this 180-200mm range much other apertures than f/5.6-11. For shorter focal lengths wider apertures are needed to achieve the three dimensional look I'm after in my photos. To me the Zeiss "look" is mostly created by certain bokeh quality and sharp transition from focal plane to bokeh. Problematic thing is when subject is far away (e.g. 15 meters/45 feet) I have to use very large aperture, for example Makro-Planar 2/100 performs excellently in this kind of photos since it's sharp already at f/2. If I need to do make subject to "pop" from background at longer distances and longer focal lengths I can use Canon 300/2.8L for that, however this lens is not suitable for travelling - also would not like to shoot with it at streets etc. crowded places...
kosmoskatten wrote:
Check back in four hours or so, it is 11.30 here in Sweden and three o'clock I will have some close ups ready for you, no sweat!
Thank you very much, I'll have to leave at 5PM (4PM your time), but I'm back online at Monday evening.
Feb 22, 2009 at 05:27 AM
p.1 #17180-200mm options?
I don't know what I have been earlier doing with Google, obviously something wrong, but I found interesting review about the topic:
http://photo.net/neighbor/view-one.tcl?neighbor_to_neighbor_id=93110
http://photo.net/neighbor/view-one.tcl?neighbor_to_neighbor_id=93110
Feb 22, 2009 at 05:49 AM
p.1 #18180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
Interested to see which direction you go. One aspect that may be worth thinking of is resale ease. Any of the Leica's or CV lenses would probably sell easier/faster if you decided to change glass vs. the CZs.
Yes, I agree, it's interesting to see my direction... In princible I would just want 180-200mm lens with similar character as shorter CZ lenses - I'm like Zeiss drawing style over Leica, Leica has the nice clarity but so ofthen I miss the "edgier" nature of Zeiss in Leica photos. Other alternatives (Voigtlander, Leica APO-Telyt) are on the "list" since the CZ performance may not be good enough, what I'm trying to find out.
Resale has been not one of the selection criteria for me this far. I think I have only sold the kit lenses (28-135 and 17-85) and ages ago I sold 300/4L, 70-200/4L(non IS), Sigma 24-70, Sigma 30 and Sigma 15 (that was mistake - I would love to have it still). I have not yet sold any alternative lenses, I may have to consider it since I don't have any use for my PC Nikkors (28&35).
Conner999 wrote:
As you know, the telyt was designed for US Navy use snapping Soviet naval activity at infinity with a deep DoF (e.g. at smaller apertures). While stopping down at any given distance will improve the res, at closer distance, regardless of aperture, it will not perform as well as the Leica, CV alternatives mentioned in terms of resolution.
I found some intresting threads from photo.net and with your information above I start to feel that APO-Telyt 3.4 is not for me. Thanks for the additional information!!
Conner999 wrote:
As Kosmo mentioned the 180/2.8 APO takes the lunch money from any others in that FL, but you pay for it dearly - even more so if you want one that will take a 1.4x
In addition being expensive I don't see many available in used market. Also this starts to be too expensive to purchase from eBay.
Conner999 wrote:
Another lens, albeit spendy, in that range that is stellar and performs like a knife, especially at 180mm is the Leica 105-280/4.2. I tested it against my 180/2.8 APO and you had to be pixel peeping to note the differences, but the APO did have an edge in clarity (APo) and very fine micro detail.
The lens tech sheet at 180mm is below - note the typo where the chart at "F2.8" should read "F4.2". If interested in the complete lens PDF, drop me an email. It's no longer avail from Leica, but I managed to dig one up (can't...Show more →
This seems good performer, however I somehow don't want to use zoom lenses. I'm very lazy, primes make me think about perspective and framing much more. I have learned pretty well to frame my subjects without camera and then I just walk to correct spot, put camera on tripod, take lens from bag and mount it to camera and then just take the photo. When I photograph with zoom my laziness causes me to stand in one place, shoot 100 bad pictures without moving my feed and then wonder at home "this could have been better if I would have shoot this from different angle". Maybe some day I learn to shoot with zooms, I start to learn it this spring and summer I try to learn Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 3.4/35-70 - if I get it working, something like this Leica 105-280 or Zeiss 100-300 would be perfect companion to 35-70. [I have shoot years with Canon zooms, with not so good results, then went to only prime lenses]
Interested to see which direction you go. One aspect that may be worth thinking of is resale ease. Any of the Leica's or CV lenses would probably sell easier/faster if you decided to change glass vs. the CZs.
Yes, I agree, it's interesting to see my direction... In princible I would just want 180-200mm lens with similar character as shorter CZ lenses - I'm like Zeiss drawing style over Leica, Leica has the nice clarity but so ofthen I miss the "edgier" nature of Zeiss in Leica photos. Other alternatives (Voigtlander, Leica APO-Telyt) are on the "list" since the CZ performance may not be good enough, what I'm trying to find out.
Resale has been not one of the selection criteria for me this far. I think I have only sold the kit lenses (28-135 and 17-85) and ages ago I sold 300/4L, 70-200/4L(non IS), Sigma 24-70, Sigma 30 and Sigma 15 (that was mistake - I would love to have it still). I have not yet sold any alternative lenses, I may have to consider it since I don't have any use for my PC Nikkors (28&35).
Conner999 wrote:
As you know, the telyt was designed for US Navy use snapping Soviet naval activity at infinity with a deep DoF (e.g. at smaller apertures). While stopping down at any given distance will improve the res, at closer distance, regardless of aperture, it will not perform as well as the Leica, CV alternatives mentioned in terms of resolution.
I found some intresting threads from photo.net and with your information above I start to feel that APO-Telyt 3.4 is not for me. Thanks for the additional information!!
Conner999 wrote:
As Kosmo mentioned the 180/2.8 APO takes the lunch money from any others in that FL, but you pay for it dearly - even more so if you want one that will take a 1.4x
In addition being expensive I don't see many available in used market. Also this starts to be too expensive to purchase from eBay.
Conner999 wrote:
Another lens, albeit spendy, in that range that is stellar and performs like a knife, especially at 180mm is the Leica 105-280/4.2. I tested it against my 180/2.8 APO and you had to be pixel peeping to note the differences, but the APO did have an edge in clarity (APo) and very fine micro detail.
The lens tech sheet at 180mm is below - note the typo where the chart at "F2.8" should read "F4.2". If interested in the complete lens PDF, drop me an email. It's no longer avail from Leica, but I managed to dig one up (can't...Show more →
This seems good performer, however I somehow don't want to use zoom lenses. I'm very lazy, primes make me think about perspective and framing much more. I have learned pretty well to frame my subjects without camera and then I just walk to correct spot, put camera on tripod, take lens from bag and mount it to camera and then just take the photo. When I photograph with zoom my laziness causes me to stand in one place, shoot 100 bad pictures without moving my feed and then wonder at home "this could have been better if I would have shoot this from different angle". Maybe some day I learn to shoot with zooms, I start to learn it this spring and summer I try to learn Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 3.4/35-70 - if I get it working, something like this Leica 105-280 or Zeiss 100-300 would be perfect companion to 35-70. [I have shoot years with Canon zooms, with not so good results, then went to only prime lenses]
Feb 22, 2009 at 07:00 AM
p.1 #19180-200mm options?
kosmoskatten wrote:
About the 200/3.5 versus 200/4:
Yes, I was very surprised that the newer 200/4 would not be as sharp as the older 3.5.
All three lenses, i.e. the TT 3.5/200, TT 4/200, and S 2.8/180, are 'old designs' saddled
with a fair degree of lateral color. This was already evident on film, and will only be more
conspicuous on today's sensors. In this regard the later zoom lenses VS 4/80-200 and
VS 4.5-5.6/100-300 perform better. However, if the OP is already disappointed with the
Canon EF200mm f/2.8 L USM mkII, he will not be convinced by any of these Zeiss
lenses.
About the 200/3.5 versus 200/4:
Yes, I was very surprised that the newer 200/4 would not be as sharp as the older 3.5.
All three lenses, i.e. the TT 3.5/200, TT 4/200, and S 2.8/180, are 'old designs' saddled
with a fair degree of lateral color. This was already evident on film, and will only be more
conspicuous on today's sensors. In this regard the later zoom lenses VS 4/80-200 and
VS 4.5-5.6/100-300 perform better. However, if the OP is already disappointed with the
Canon EF200mm f/2.8 L USM mkII, he will not be convinced by any of these Zeiss
lenses.
Feb 22, 2009 at 07:10 AM
p.1 #20180-200mm options?
Toothwalker wrote:
Yes, I was very surprised that the newer 200/4 would not be as sharp as the older 3.5.All three lenses, i.e. the TT 3.5/200, TT 4/200, and S 2.8/180, are 'old designs' saddled
with a fair degree of lateral color. This was already evident on film, and will only be more
conspicuous on today's sensors. In this regard the later zoom lenses VS 4/80-200 and
VS 4.5-5.6/100-300 perform better. However, if the OP is already disappointed with the
Canon EF200mm f/2.8 L USM mkII, he will not be convinced by any of these Zeiss
lenses.
Toothwalker - I don't think there is one number which can say how good lens is. For some of the qualities of Canon 200/2.8L are very ok (lack of CA, high contrast) however it lacks the look in images what I see in images taken with Zeiss lenses. Most of this look comes from 3 components, in which Canon doesn't perform well to my eye, below some comparison in my mind between CZ Makro-Planar 2/100 and Canon 200/2.8L:
1. transformation from focal plane to blur/bokeh (Zeiss = in middle of DOF there is small region which is really sharp, border between DOF and blur is pretty sharp - Canon = almost whole calculated DOF is having uniform sharpness, border between DOF and blur is very soft)
2. bokeh itself needs to have some edginess but not in unpleasant way (yeah, and really easy to explain this in my 2nd language - Zeiss = edgy bokeh but for example bokeh highlights are nice, Canon = soft bokeh, but bokeh highlights have annoying circles where the edge is slightly brighter than the center, overcorrection causes this sometimes)
3. microcontrast (Zeiss = delivered, Canon = not there, not with any aperture)
Of these typically Leica/Voigtlander delivers just #3 - they have then other characters which interest me - for example based on small number of available samples from Voigtlander APOs seem to have greater contrast on focal plane, and small contrast at bokeh. This character of the lens drawing definetly interests me. All the APO lenses do seem to represent colors better. Leicas' have their smooth bokeh and wide apparent sharpness inside DOF, which could be useful in some cases.
So I hope you understand that the reasons why I'm disappointed to 200/2.8L are not ones that one simple photodo measurement can tell. In contrary I'm sure 200/2.8L succeeds very well in all reviews which do not take lens character into account. For me it's the main reason to shoot with alternative lenses, Canon lenses are OK, build to succeed in there review giving just one number as the end result.
Lateral color (I assume you mean CA) can be corrected with software but like any aliasing (in princible it's just scaling of different color layers separately => scaling=aliasing) it will cause image to blur more, so it may mean that microcontrast is lost in process of correcting (depending amount of lateral color and correction). This will in practice mean that these Zeiss lenses may not deliver what I want, but I guess I have to find out that by myself since DSLR samples of these lenses are rare.
kosmoskatten wrote
About the 200/3.5 versus 200/4:Yes, I was very surprised that the newer 200/4 would not be as sharp as the older 3.5.
with a fair degree of lateral color. This was already evident on film, and will only be more
conspicuous on today's sensors. In this regard the later zoom lenses VS 4/80-200 and
VS 4.5-5.6/100-300 perform better. However, if the OP is already disappointed with the
Canon EF200mm f/2.8 L USM mkII, he will not be convinced by any of these Zeiss
lenses.
Toothwalker - I don't think there is one number which can say how good lens is. For some of the qualities of Canon 200/2.8L are very ok (lack of CA, high contrast) however it lacks the look in images what I see in images taken with Zeiss lenses. Most of this look comes from 3 components, in which Canon doesn't perform well to my eye, below some comparison in my mind between CZ Makro-Planar 2/100 and Canon 200/2.8L:
1. transformation from focal plane to blur/bokeh (Zeiss = in middle of DOF there is small region which is really sharp, border between DOF and blur is pretty sharp - Canon = almost whole calculated DOF is having uniform sharpness, border between DOF and blur is very soft)
2. bokeh itself needs to have some edginess but not in unpleasant way (yeah, and really easy to explain this in my 2nd language - Zeiss = edgy bokeh but for example bokeh highlights are nice, Canon = soft bokeh, but bokeh highlights have annoying circles where the edge is slightly brighter than the center, overcorrection causes this sometimes)
3. microcontrast (Zeiss = delivered, Canon = not there, not with any aperture)
Of these typically Leica/Voigtlander delivers just #3 - they have then other characters which interest me - for example based on small number of available samples from Voigtlander APOs seem to have greater contrast on focal plane, and small contrast at bokeh. This character of the lens drawing definetly interests me. All the APO lenses do seem to represent colors better. Leicas' have their smooth bokeh and wide apparent sharpness inside DOF, which could be useful in some cases.
So I hope you understand that the reasons why I'm disappointed to 200/2.8L are not ones that one simple photodo measurement can tell. In contrary I'm sure 200/2.8L succeeds very well in all reviews which do not take lens character into account. For me it's the main reason to shoot with alternative lenses, Canon lenses are OK, build to succeed in there review giving just one number as the end result.
Lateral color (I assume you mean CA) can be corrected with software but like any aliasing (in princible it's just scaling of different color layers separately => scaling=aliasing) it will cause image to blur more, so it may mean that microcontrast is lost in process of correcting (depending amount of lateral color and correction). This will in practice mean that these Zeiss lenses may not deliver what I want, but I guess I have to find out that by myself since DSLR samples of these lenses are rare.
Feb 22, 2009 at 07:43 AM