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.3 #1180-200mm options?
Henrik - remind me to take you car shopping with me next time I'm in the market. Gorgeous young lady. Oh yeah, the pics ok too ;>
Feb 23, 2009 at 03:55 PM
p.3 #3180-200mm options?
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Wow, looks pretty sharp as well based on the 100% crop. Is it this lens?
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/200mm.htm
Nope...this page...the version with the WIDE FOCUSING RING that focuses to 7'.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/telephoto/200mm.htm
as written there, the newer AI version is smaller/lighter
jay tieger wrote
I like my Nikkor 200/4...it's the pre-AI 2nd version with 7' MFD, not the AI or AI-S version which is even more compact...the pre-AI 2nd version can be had very cheaply...http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/200mm.htm
Nope...this page...the version with the WIDE FOCUSING RING that focuses to 7'.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/telephoto/200mm.htm
as written there, the newer AI version is smaller/lighter
Feb 24, 2009 at 05:01 PM
p.3 #4180-200mm options?
I use Nikkor 180/2.8 Ais ED. Creamy bokeh, and good contrast. It's also small and packable. My copy has some wiped a coating lens off, but pictures look good.
There are sample with bokeh:
on 20D
on 5D
There are sample with bokeh:
on 20D
 |
||
| http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/wydarzenia/w9/images/img_7935.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/wydarzenia/w9/images/img_7987.jpg | ||
|
on 5D
|
||
| http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/wydarzenia/w10/images/08185_011.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/wydarzenia/w10/images/08185_096.jpg | ||
|
Feb 25, 2009 at 01:26 AM
p.3 #5180-200mm options?
szwayko wrote:
I use Nikkor 180/2.8 Ais ED. Creamy bokeh, and good contrast. It's also small and packable. My copy has some wiped a coating lens off, but pictures look good.
There are sample with bokeh:
on 20D
http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/wydarzenia/w9/images/img_7935.jpg
This photo seems to reveal one thing I don't like in this lens (seen also in numerous samples at pbase and flickr): the bokeh CA which most probably is the cause why some of the white bars, in the window at back of the artist, look pinkish white.
Please don't take this wrong, I don't want to be rude or anything, but I have seen better "pop" from this lens, which these photos doesn't seem to have. Even lightning etc. would indicate good possibilities for good pop. Somehow it looks like they are not sharpened at all after resizing or the JPG compression takes the edge off from these images.
I use Nikkor 180/2.8 Ais ED. Creamy bokeh, and good contrast. It's also small and packable. My copy has some wiped a coating lens off, but pictures look good.
There are sample with bokeh:
on 20D
http://www.szwayko.republika.pl/wydarzenia/w9/images/img_7935.jpg
This photo seems to reveal one thing I don't like in this lens (seen also in numerous samples at pbase and flickr): the bokeh CA which most probably is the cause why some of the white bars, in the window at back of the artist, look pinkish white.
Please don't take this wrong, I don't want to be rude or anything, but I have seen better "pop" from this lens, which these photos doesn't seem to have. Even lightning etc. would indicate good possibilities for good pop. Somehow it looks like they are not sharpened at all after resizing or the JPG compression takes the edge off from these images.
Feb 25, 2009 at 06:35 AM
p.3 #6180-200mm options?
For those of whom have subscription to Lloyd Chambers DAP may find his addition of Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 to Nikon 180mm lens review pretty interesting. I did check the very few samples available online again (pbase etc.), and I'm no longer so eager to buy this lens, at least for the high prices they have been sold recently. Maybe SLII version if/when it comes out.
Feb 27, 2009 at 05:52 AM
p.3 #7180-200mm options?
Having owned both modern Leica 180 APOs and the Cv 180 APO, if I could get a lens that was 25% (I got mine, my second, for roughly $500 recently) of the price of a used 180/2.8 APO yet was second in that FL in terms of resolution and APO correction ONLY to the 180/2.8 APO, I'd call that a bargain. If, as a Nikon shooter, this also saved me stop-down metering, the bargain only gets better.
For close to the same price (give it time, hell, CV 125 AiS units have gone for $1900 on Ebay, so you never know..) , the Leica 180 APOs are unquestionably king, but that hasn't happened yet.
As a DAP subscriber, Lloyd's tests look pretty accurate vs. my experience. CV's SLR and rangefinder lenses are typically lower in MACRO contrast (which can fool the eye into thinking are soft, which they are not) than Leica -- and both, in turn, are typically lower in macro contrast than Zeiss, but macro contrast is easy to add in PP if desired. Resolution (micro contrast) and APO correction, well, isn't ;>
Given that Lloyd is 'offering' his 180/4 APO for sale for $2000 (the price of a used leica 180/2.8 AP0), the cheapest (in is his words) he would let it go for says a lot.
As an FYI, the CV 90/3.5 APO is even sharper than the 180 and, having owned all three CV APOs (90, 180, 125), the best of the three, followed by (in order) the 180 and 125. Bokeh form all three is very similar - buttery smooth.
Edited on Feb 27, 2009 at 08:57 AM · View previous versions
For close to the same price (give it time, hell, CV 125 AiS units have gone for $1900 on Ebay, so you never know..) , the Leica 180 APOs are unquestionably king, but that hasn't happened yet.
As a DAP subscriber, Lloyd's tests look pretty accurate vs. my experience. CV's SLR and rangefinder lenses are typically lower in MACRO contrast (which can fool the eye into thinking are soft, which they are not) than Leica -- and both, in turn, are typically lower in macro contrast than Zeiss, but macro contrast is easy to add in PP if desired. Resolution (micro contrast) and APO correction, well, isn't ;>
Given that Lloyd is 'offering' his 180/4 APO for sale for $2000 (the price of a used leica 180/2.8 AP0), the cheapest (in is his words) he would let it go for says a lot.
As an FYI, the CV 90/3.5 APO is even sharper than the 180 and, having owned all three CV APOs (90, 180, 125), the best of the three, followed by (in order) the 180 and 125. Bokeh form all three is very similar - buttery smooth.
Edited on Feb 27, 2009 at 08:57 AM · View previous versions
Feb 27, 2009 at 07:29 AM
p.3 #8180-200mm options?
Nikkor 180 2.8 Ai-S
http://fc50.deviantart.com/fs39/i/2008/354/5/e/Sabrina_by_cainadamsson.jpg
http://fc50.deviantart.com/fs39/i/2008/354/5/e/Sabrina_by_cainadamsson.jpg
Feb 27, 2009 at 07:49 AM
p.3 #9180-200mm options?
Nice (in more ways than one ;>
For B&W work, where CA control is of minimal import, the Nikon 180 sure is a nice bargain.
For B&W work, where CA control is of minimal import, the Nikon 180 sure is a nice bargain.
Feb 27, 2009 at 08:16 AM
p.3 #10180-200mm options?
100% crops, wide open @ 2.8 (nikkor 180 2.8 ai-s) CA-tests.
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/481736675_MzAjd-O.jpg
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/481736642_zkMQ6-O.jpg
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/481736654_EcQwu-O.jpg
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/481736675_MzAjd-O.jpg
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/481736642_zkMQ6-O.jpg
http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/481736654_EcQwu-O.jpg
Feb 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM
p.3 #11180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
Having owned both modern Leica 180 APOs and the Cv 180 APO, if I could get a lens that was 25% (I got mine, my second, for roughly $500 recently) of the price of a used 180/2.8 APO yet was second in that FL in terms of resolution and APO correction ONLY to the 180/2.8 APO, I'd call that a bargain. If, as a Nikon shooter, this also saved me stop-down metering, the bargain only gets better.
As an FYI, the CV 90/3.5 APO is even sharper than the 180 and, having owned all three CV APOs (90, 180, 125), the...Show more →
My decision is not based to what he said, it's combination of that and the example photos and thinks I noticed earlier in samples (which I at the time interpret to bad sharpening/post processing technique, but it seems it's character of the lens). To me the example photos just lack any pop and 3D. With these butter smooth bokeh lenses the 3d/"pop" can will only be achieved by using so small DOF that image becomes "layered", e.g. close ups with long focal length.
I just don't like the look what the ultra smooth transition from DOF to bokeh causes. This is of course my personal opinion, I don't buy any lens based on that somebody says it's good. With Leica 80-200/4 I took risk, let's see how I can adapt to Leica's neutral characterless bokeh or rendering.
Well let's see, I'm now shooting with 1DmkIII, and strongly preferring Zeiss. Maybe when we get 40+Mpix DSLRs I'll get the 2kEUR 180, 3kEUR 90 Voigtlanders ;-) if Zeiss resolution is no longer enough.
Conner999 wrote:
As a DAP subscriber, Lloyd's tests look pretty accurate vs. my experience. CV's SLR and rangefinder lenses are typically lower in MACRO contrast (which can fool the eye into thinking are soft, which they are not) than Leica -- and both, in turn, are typically lower in macro contrast than Zeiss, but macro contrast is easy to add in PP if desired. Resolution (micro contrast) and APO correction, well, isn't ;>
I hate digital darkroom work, I try to minimize it. In any case for panoramas and HDR photos I have to spend more than enough time in front of the computer.
Having owned both modern Leica 180 APOs and the Cv 180 APO, if I could get a lens that was 25% (I got mine, my second, for roughly $500 recently) of the price of a used 180/2.8 APO yet was second in that FL in terms of resolution and APO correction ONLY to the 180/2.8 APO, I'd call that a bargain. If, as a Nikon shooter, this also saved me stop-down metering, the bargain only gets better.
As an FYI, the CV 90/3.5 APO is even sharper than the 180 and, having owned all three CV APOs (90, 180, 125), the...Show more →
My decision is not based to what he said, it's combination of that and the example photos and thinks I noticed earlier in samples (which I at the time interpret to bad sharpening/post processing technique, but it seems it's character of the lens). To me the example photos just lack any pop and 3D. With these butter smooth bokeh lenses the 3d/"pop" can will only be achieved by using so small DOF that image becomes "layered", e.g. close ups with long focal length.
I just don't like the look what the ultra smooth transition from DOF to bokeh causes. This is of course my personal opinion, I don't buy any lens based on that somebody says it's good. With Leica 80-200/4 I took risk, let's see how I can adapt to Leica's neutral characterless bokeh or rendering.
Well let's see, I'm now shooting with 1DmkIII, and strongly preferring Zeiss. Maybe when we get 40+Mpix DSLRs I'll get the 2kEUR 180, 3kEUR 90 Voigtlanders ;-) if Zeiss resolution is no longer enough.
Conner999 wrote:
As a DAP subscriber, Lloyd's tests look pretty accurate vs. my experience. CV's SLR and rangefinder lenses are typically lower in MACRO contrast (which can fool the eye into thinking are soft, which they are not) than Leica -- and both, in turn, are typically lower in macro contrast than Zeiss, but macro contrast is easy to add in PP if desired. Resolution (micro contrast) and APO correction, well, isn't ;>
I hate digital darkroom work, I try to minimize it. In any case for panoramas and HDR photos I have to spend more than enough time in front of the computer.
Feb 28, 2009 at 12:36 AM
p.3 #12180-200mm options?
Hey - everyone's tastes are different. If you want consistent 3D effect, Zeiss is, as you know, more likely to show it. Personally I prefer a subtle and smooth in/out focus transition and a lower macro contrast lens and will give up 3D for lower contrast.
As an FYI - tend to find Epson VFA (factory color profiles & Eric Chan's ABW profile) will give almost any print a very, very nice 3D effect (or in case of a Zeiss shot, enhance it). Matte paper with no sheen and while the texture vanishes in any areas of print with detail, the mild texture of the paper gives the print a very notable depth vs other matte papers from the usual suspects.
Keep us posted as to what you think of the 80-200/4. Always wanted to shoot with one, but other priorities always seemed to get ahead of it. Now with the 80 Lux, CV 90, Cv 180 Mamiya 150/3.5 and 200 APO, the last thing I need is a 80-200 zoom ;>
As an FYI - tend to find Epson VFA (factory color profiles & Eric Chan's ABW profile) will give almost any print a very, very nice 3D effect (or in case of a Zeiss shot, enhance it). Matte paper with no sheen and while the texture vanishes in any areas of print with detail, the mild texture of the paper gives the print a very notable depth vs other matte papers from the usual suspects.
Keep us posted as to what you think of the 80-200/4. Always wanted to shoot with one, but other priorities always seemed to get ahead of it. Now with the 80 Lux, CV 90, Cv 180 Mamiya 150/3.5 and 200 APO, the last thing I need is a 80-200 zoom ;>
Feb 28, 2009 at 07:46 AM
p.3 #13180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
Hey - everyone's tastes are different.
Completly agree. I also use my Leicas (Summicron 50 and Elmarit 90) from time to time, and their rendering and colors are quite different, but useful to me at some situations.
Conner999 wrote:
As an FYI - tend to find Epson VFA (factory color profiles & Eric Chan's ABW profile) will give almost any print a very, very nice 3D effect (or in case of a Zeiss shot, enhance it). Matte paper with no sheen and while the texture vanishes in any areas of print with detail, the mild texture of the paper gives the print a very notable depth vs other matte papers from the usual suspects.
I have used online printing. The professional ones with proper ICC support etc. have been quite good but I'm seriously considering of starting to print myself. I have been quite hesitant this far since I'm always eager to print very large (75cmx50cm is about 30"x20"), but rarely do. A3+ size would maybe feel little limiting but I might print more than I do now, which would be good thing. Also B&W printing is easier if results can be proofed and seen without delay.
Conner999 wrote:
Keep us posted as to what you think of the 80-200/4. Always wanted to shoot with one, but other priorities always seemed to get ahead of it. Now with the 80 Lux, CV 90, Cv 180 Mamiya 150/3.5 and 200 APO, the last thing I need is a 80-200 zoom ;>
Yep, I will. I also decided to buy the Tele-Tessar 3.4/200 anyhow. Easiest way to put my thoughts in order is to write about, however with busy life otherwise all thinks take considerably long time to finish. I have written my small review/article of short teles since last summer and it's nowhere close to be ready, and now buying Sonnar 85 and 100 will not help on that respect.
I'm quite soon getting 5DmkII as well (they are still at waitlist in Finland - and due to recent bad quality assurance in Canon I prefer to buy from Finland, store nearest to me...), then the serious lens testing starts ;-) 1DmkIII is pretty easy for lenses with it's fairly large pixels. I have already too many lenses between 85-100mm but I feel tempted to try Voigtlander 90/3.5 since everybody raves about it's sharpness.
Hey - everyone's tastes are different.
Completly agree. I also use my Leicas (Summicron 50 and Elmarit 90) from time to time, and their rendering and colors are quite different, but useful to me at some situations.
Conner999 wrote:
As an FYI - tend to find Epson VFA (factory color profiles & Eric Chan's ABW profile) will give almost any print a very, very nice 3D effect (or in case of a Zeiss shot, enhance it). Matte paper with no sheen and while the texture vanishes in any areas of print with detail, the mild texture of the paper gives the print a very notable depth vs other matte papers from the usual suspects.
I have used online printing. The professional ones with proper ICC support etc. have been quite good but I'm seriously considering of starting to print myself. I have been quite hesitant this far since I'm always eager to print very large (75cmx50cm is about 30"x20"), but rarely do. A3+ size would maybe feel little limiting but I might print more than I do now, which would be good thing. Also B&W printing is easier if results can be proofed and seen without delay.
Conner999 wrote:
Keep us posted as to what you think of the 80-200/4. Always wanted to shoot with one, but other priorities always seemed to get ahead of it. Now with the 80 Lux, CV 90, Cv 180 Mamiya 150/3.5 and 200 APO, the last thing I need is a 80-200 zoom ;>
Yep, I will. I also decided to buy the Tele-Tessar 3.4/200 anyhow. Easiest way to put my thoughts in order is to write about, however with busy life otherwise all thinks take considerably long time to finish. I have written my small review/article of short teles since last summer and it's nowhere close to be ready, and now buying Sonnar 85 and 100 will not help on that respect.
I'm quite soon getting 5DmkII as well (they are still at waitlist in Finland - and due to recent bad quality assurance in Canon I prefer to buy from Finland, store nearest to me...), then the serious lens testing starts ;-) 1DmkIII is pretty easy for lenses with it's fairly large pixels. I have already too many lenses between 85-100mm but I feel tempted to try Voigtlander 90/3.5 since everybody raves about it's sharpness.
Feb 28, 2009 at 02:28 PM
p.3 #14180-200mm options?
Here is a shot from when I had the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that if your camera has an anti-alia filter on it, you are not getting all the lens can deliver. This was shot on a Leica DMR. Ful rez crop shows the fine detail.
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/2/l1090099_crop.jpg
Not bad in the CA.sensor bloom category either considering the white hat was in full sun.
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/2/l1090099_crop2.jpg
One thing you have to keep in mind is that if your camera has an anti-alia filter on it, you are not getting all the lens can deliver. This was shot on a Leica DMR. Ful rez crop shows the fine detail.
|
||
| http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/2/l1090099.jpg | ||
|
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/2/l1090099_crop.jpg
Not bad in the CA.sensor bloom category either considering the white hat was in full sun.
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/2/l1090099_crop2.jpg
Feb 28, 2009 at 03:11 PM
p.3 #15180-200mm options?
robsteve, DMR surely does extract all the detail possible. This example photo is very natural looking and smooth what comes to bokeh. This confirms (to me) that extreme sharpness is not the key (to me) - (to my eye) this image lacks pop/3d even the small hairs in the sheek's skin can be seen.
I got today the Contax Tele-Tessar T* 3.4/200. It's pretty chunky like Henrik said. Based on pictures on Zeiss PDFs and eBay etc. I assumed it's similar as Sonnar 2.8/135, and in real life it is, just enlarged version. Here as size reference Sonnars 2.8/135, 3.5/100 and 2.8/85 and Planar 1.7/50. One more week and I can start shooting with these, and the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 80-200mm f/4:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090229.jpg
Aperture at f/4-f5.6 has same "ninja" star shape as Sonnar 2.8/135@f/4:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090229B.jpg
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
I got today the Contax Tele-Tessar T* 3.4/200. It's pretty chunky like Henrik said. Based on pictures on Zeiss PDFs and eBay etc. I assumed it's similar as Sonnar 2.8/135, and in real life it is, just enlarged version. Here as size reference Sonnars 2.8/135, 3.5/100 and 2.8/85 and Planar 1.7/50. One more week and I can start shooting with these, and the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 80-200mm f/4:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090229.jpg
Aperture at f/4-f5.6 has same "ninja" star shape as Sonnar 2.8/135@f/4:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090229B.jpg
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Mar 01, 2009 at 05:48 PM
p.3 #16180-200mm options?
Rob, whtat is anti-alia filter?
I'm using 1DsMkII...
Here is a shot from when I had the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that if your camera has an anti-alia filter on it, you are not getting all the lens can deliver. This was shot on a Leica DMR. Ful rez crop shows the fine detail.
I'm using 1DsMkII...
Here is a shot from when I had the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that if your camera has an anti-alia filter on it, you are not getting all the lens can deliver. This was shot on a Leica DMR. Ful rez crop shows the fine detail.
Mar 02, 2009 at 11:49 AM
p.3 #17180-200mm options?
Paul Yi wrote:
Rob, whtat is anti-alia filter?
I'm using 1DsMkII...
Paul
An Anti-aliasing filter is a filter in front of the sensor which imparts a slight blur to the image projected on the sensor to reduce moire effects. It also cuts down on resolution somewhat, cameras without AA filters (as they're often called) will deliver 10-20% more resolution for a given MP count at the cost of being much more sensitive to moire. The Leica DMR and M8 do not have AA filters. All the Canons have one.
Rob, whtat is anti-alia filter?
I'm using 1DsMkII...
Paul
An Anti-aliasing filter is a filter in front of the sensor which imparts a slight blur to the image projected on the sensor to reduce moire effects. It also cuts down on resolution somewhat, cameras without AA filters (as they're often called) will deliver 10-20% more resolution for a given MP count at the cost of being much more sensitive to moire. The Leica DMR and M8 do not have AA filters. All the Canons have one.
Mar 02, 2009 at 12:00 PM
p.3 #19180-200mm options?
As promised I get back here when I get some feeling about the lens. Yesterday evening I got back from US to Finland and today was able to do some photography with Leica Vario-Elmar-R 80-200mm f/4. Below are my initial feelings about the lens. Everything is based on:
- ISO 100 shooting with Canon EOS 1DmkIII
- focusing with live view
- using tripod and wired remote trigger
- didn't shoot close-ups, just medium distance and long distance/infinity stuff
I get tomorrow my Canon EOS 5DmkII, so I'll update here how it handles full frame and smaller pixels, when I have time to shoot with 5DmkII.
I also shoot with my "new" Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 C/Y, but not enough to say much about it yet. This far Zeiss doesn't seem as bad as people indicated in this thread. I didn't do infinity shooting with Zeiss, just medium distance shooting. I'll be comparing these two in future.
Overall rating/feeling
This lens seems to be keeper. Very sharp lens with very smooth bokeh. Much more than I ever expected from any zoom.
Performance
Since this initial evaluation was done with large pixel 1DmkIII, sharpness may seem good but for example with 50D's small pixels it may not be so great. However some comments based on todays shooting.
Pros:
+ as sharp as it gets wide open (remember, this is for 1DmkIII) at medium and long distances, only small vignetting (remember 1.3x crop with 1DmkIII)
+ consistent sharpness over entires 1.3x crop sensor
+ excellent contrast, overall contrast and microcontrast
Cons:
- veiling flare when sun shining to front lens (see example in the end of post)
Handling
Pros:
+ lens barrel is narrow, good for travelling
+ aperture ring is easy to operate even with gloves (it was -4C / 25F today, I shoot 4 hours outdoors, with gloves) and has half stop detends
Cons:
- It's zoom lens with fixed infinity stop but lens is not parfocal, engineers must have been drunk when designing this part of the lens (see examples at end of the post)
- the focus ring turns too easily and focus throw is only 180 degrees - really hard to focus at longer distances
- zoom ring is close to camera and focus ring far away in the lens - this makes focusing even worse
- focusing affects to magnification- if you compose with one focus setting, which is wrong and then focus when composed the "zooming" change and may have to be readjusted
- lens is long and heavy
- I had hard time focusing using viewfinder using EC-S, it was not too dark but image just didn't "pop" into focus like it does with some lenses, e.g. Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100.
Subjective evaluations
3D/pop:
+/- On some photos some slight 3D-look can be seen, if you really try, it doesn't jump to my eyes, but it's there - have to revisit this when I get my 5DmkII - some sample images at end of this post.
Bokeh:
+ almost in all situations the bokeh was very smooth, no ugly bokeh appeared
+ very consistent bokeh over different focal lengths, distances and apertures (once learned easy to produce results which one prefers) - exclusing of course the close-ups which I didn't shoot, back to them at later
Sample images and examples
Lens is not parfocal. I found out this when shooting "inifinity test images". I also had to use no-brand eBay adapter, which may be too thick (both Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 as well as Summicron-R 50mm f/2 did focus to infinity with this same adapter). I did later some tests and it seems that subject which was about 15 meters far away these were the correct focus distances on the scale:
80mm = infinity
100mm = halfway between 15m and infinity
120mm = 1/3 between 15m and infinity
150mm = 15m
200mm = slightly before 15m
Even if I would have used correct thickness (can't check I have my micrometer 120km from my home at workshop) adapter this doesn't mean that the lens would turn to parfocal. Really stupid to put stop at infinity for lens which is not parfocal.
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_notparfocal.jpg
Veiling flare when sun shining to lens. Sun was really low, shining through some light clouding. Any of my Zeiss lenses would have not had any difference. Since I cannot use Javascript to switch pictures for easy comparison please see this page:
http://www.vahonen.com/photo/articles/LeicaVarioElmar80200f4/scene1/
For my tripod work this is not big problem, I almost always shade the lens with hand, hat or whatever happens to be available.
Sample 1 - difficult bokeh scenario - 80-200 handles it very nicely - 200mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_hardbokeh1.jpg
Sample 2 - another difficult bokeh scenario - bokeh is nice but I would have assumed more pop/3D-look from this kind of scenario - about 180mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_hardbokeh2.jpg
Sample 3 - there is little 3D-look in this image, would hoped little more - about 135mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_no3D_1.jpg
Sample 4 - there is little 3D-look in this image, would hoped little more - about 100mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_no3D_2.jpg
Sample 5 - bokeh is nice and smooth even wide end, the focal plane detail is pixel to pixel sharp with 1DmkIII - 80mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample80mm_1.jpg
Sample 6 - bokeh is nice and smooth even wide end, the focal plane detail is pixel to pixel sharp with 1DmkIII - 80mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample80mm_2.jpg
Sample 7 - at 135mm the lens easily cuts images to "layers" (in focus layer and separate bokeh layer) bokeh is nice and smooth, the focal level detail is pixel to pixel sharp with 1DmkIII - 135mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample135mm_1.jpg
Sample 8 - comparison to Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/135 C/Y - both lenses handle the very difficult bokeh (pine needless can cause major problems to most of the Canon lenses for example) - first Leica 80-200@f/4 (around 135mm, not exactly same framing as with Zeiss) then Zeiss 2.8/200@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample135mm_2.jpg
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample135mm_2_CZ.jpg
Sample 9 - at 200mm, sometimes the bokeh is drawn like in this image, a little more smoothness would be assumed - 200mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample200mm_1.jpg
Sample 10 - These comparison photos to Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 C/Y are taken from same tripod location. It seems that Zeiss has somewhat longer focal length than Leica when focused to about 2 meter.
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample200mm_2.jpg
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample200mm_2_CZ.jpg
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
- ISO 100 shooting with Canon EOS 1DmkIII
- focusing with live view
- using tripod and wired remote trigger
- didn't shoot close-ups, just medium distance and long distance/infinity stuff
I get tomorrow my Canon EOS 5DmkII, so I'll update here how it handles full frame and smaller pixels, when I have time to shoot with 5DmkII.
I also shoot with my "new" Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 C/Y, but not enough to say much about it yet. This far Zeiss doesn't seem as bad as people indicated in this thread. I didn't do infinity shooting with Zeiss, just medium distance shooting. I'll be comparing these two in future.
Overall rating/feeling
This lens seems to be keeper. Very sharp lens with very smooth bokeh. Much more than I ever expected from any zoom.
Performance
Since this initial evaluation was done with large pixel 1DmkIII, sharpness may seem good but for example with 50D's small pixels it may not be so great. However some comments based on todays shooting.
Pros:
+ as sharp as it gets wide open (remember, this is for 1DmkIII) at medium and long distances, only small vignetting (remember 1.3x crop with 1DmkIII)
+ consistent sharpness over entires 1.3x crop sensor
+ excellent contrast, overall contrast and microcontrast
Cons:
- veiling flare when sun shining to front lens (see example in the end of post)
Handling
Pros:
+ lens barrel is narrow, good for travelling
+ aperture ring is easy to operate even with gloves (it was -4C / 25F today, I shoot 4 hours outdoors, with gloves) and has half stop detends
Cons:
- It's zoom lens with fixed infinity stop but lens is not parfocal, engineers must have been drunk when designing this part of the lens (see examples at end of the post)
- the focus ring turns too easily and focus throw is only 180 degrees - really hard to focus at longer distances
- zoom ring is close to camera and focus ring far away in the lens - this makes focusing even worse
- focusing affects to magnification- if you compose with one focus setting, which is wrong and then focus when composed the "zooming" change and may have to be readjusted
- lens is long and heavy
- I had hard time focusing using viewfinder using EC-S, it was not too dark but image just didn't "pop" into focus like it does with some lenses, e.g. Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100.
Subjective evaluations
3D/pop:
+/- On some photos some slight 3D-look can be seen, if you really try, it doesn't jump to my eyes, but it's there - have to revisit this when I get my 5DmkII - some sample images at end of this post.
Bokeh:
+ almost in all situations the bokeh was very smooth, no ugly bokeh appeared
+ very consistent bokeh over different focal lengths, distances and apertures (once learned easy to produce results which one prefers) - exclusing of course the close-ups which I didn't shoot, back to them at later
Sample images and examples
Lens is not parfocal. I found out this when shooting "inifinity test images". I also had to use no-brand eBay adapter, which may be too thick (both Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 as well as Summicron-R 50mm f/2 did focus to infinity with this same adapter). I did later some tests and it seems that subject which was about 15 meters far away these were the correct focus distances on the scale:
80mm = infinity
100mm = halfway between 15m and infinity
120mm = 1/3 between 15m and infinity
150mm = 15m
200mm = slightly before 15m
Even if I would have used correct thickness (can't check I have my micrometer 120km from my home at workshop) adapter this doesn't mean that the lens would turn to parfocal. Really stupid to put stop at infinity for lens which is not parfocal.
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_notparfocal.jpg
Veiling flare when sun shining to lens. Sun was really low, shining through some light clouding. Any of my Zeiss lenses would have not had any difference. Since I cannot use Javascript to switch pictures for easy comparison please see this page:
http://www.vahonen.com/photo/articles/LeicaVarioElmar80200f4/scene1/
For my tripod work this is not big problem, I almost always shade the lens with hand, hat or whatever happens to be available.
Sample 1 - difficult bokeh scenario - 80-200 handles it very nicely - 200mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_hardbokeh1.jpg
Sample 2 - another difficult bokeh scenario - bokeh is nice but I would have assumed more pop/3D-look from this kind of scenario - about 180mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_hardbokeh2.jpg
Sample 3 - there is little 3D-look in this image, would hoped little more - about 135mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_no3D_1.jpg
Sample 4 - there is little 3D-look in this image, would hoped little more - about 100mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_no3D_2.jpg
Sample 5 - bokeh is nice and smooth even wide end, the focal plane detail is pixel to pixel sharp with 1DmkIII - 80mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample80mm_1.jpg
Sample 6 - bokeh is nice and smooth even wide end, the focal plane detail is pixel to pixel sharp with 1DmkIII - 80mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample80mm_2.jpg
Sample 7 - at 135mm the lens easily cuts images to "layers" (in focus layer and separate bokeh layer) bokeh is nice and smooth, the focal level detail is pixel to pixel sharp with 1DmkIII - 135mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample135mm_1.jpg
Sample 8 - comparison to Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 2.8/135 C/Y - both lenses handle the very difficult bokeh (pine needless can cause major problems to most of the Canon lenses for example) - first Leica 80-200@f/4 (around 135mm, not exactly same framing as with Zeiss) then Zeiss 2.8/200@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample135mm_2.jpg
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample135mm_2_CZ.jpg
Sample 9 - at 200mm, sometimes the bokeh is drawn like in this image, a little more smoothness would be assumed - 200mm@f/4
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample200mm_1.jpg
Sample 10 - These comparison photos to Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200 C/Y are taken from same tripod location. It seems that Zeiss has somewhat longer focal length than Leica when focused to about 2 meter.
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample200mm_2.jpg
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090308_sample200mm_2_CZ.jpg
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Mar 08, 2009 at 04:52 PM
p.3 #20180-200mm options?
Looks very nice. Sharp, nice bokeh, typical Leica color/contrast. 3D effect not as prominent as Zeiss on screen, but choice of paper when printing can equalize that nicely if desired.
"- the focus ring turns too easily and focus throw is only 180 degrees - really hard to focus at longer distances"
This is one thing I found challenging with the 35-70/4 as well. Very easy to mis-focus in shallow DoF scenarios - or at distance if used to most other lenses. Very similar performance in all respects to what I see here with the 80-200 but with a bit more distortion. Both offer great bang for the buck.
"- the focus ring turns too easily and focus throw is only 180 degrees - really hard to focus at longer distances"
This is one thing I found challenging with the 35-70/4 as well. Very easy to mis-focus in shallow DoF scenarios - or at distance if used to most other lenses. Very similar performance in all respects to what I see here with the 80-200 but with a bit more distortion. Both offer great bang for the buck.
Mar 08, 2009 at 05:24 PM