This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
p.1 #1Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
I was wondering if anyone had any samples from each of these lenses to share? I particularly like samples from nikon 200/2.0 but was wondering how the leica would compare. preferably low light portraits. thanks.
Oct 09, 2009 at 10:55 AM
p.1 #2Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
Can we also throw in an EF 200/1.8 and/or EF200/2? I'll put my money on the Leica APO. I own one but have not had the others.
Edited on Oct 12, 2009 at 03:50 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Oct 12, 2009 at 03:50 PM · View previous versions
Oct 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM
p.1 #3Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
It won't be long before brainiac adds his US$0.03 (inflation) to the thread.
Oct 10, 2009 at 02:44 PM
p.1 #5Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
I have the 180/2 APO. Erwin Puts said the 180/2.8 APO is the best Leica lens ever produced, but I found the 180/2@f/2.8 has the best optical performance. (Contrast & extreme fine detail) I've tested this on my two copies of 180/2.8 APO, both are in mint condition. Sorry, I am not a Nikon fan. I can't comment the 200/2VR.
Oct 12, 2009 at 06:29 AM
p.1 #6Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
would you have any tripoded night cityscape/portrait samples that you could share?
Oct 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM
p.1 #7Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
You might want to post this on the Nikon forum. Trenchmonkey probably has examples of each.
Oct 12, 2009 at 02:03 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.1 #8Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
Leica 180 f2, wide open, nightscape, Canon 5D, iso 400:
http://cyberphotographer.com/leica180f2/highrez/f2_8s_iso400.jpg
...at f5.6, iso 200:
http://cyberphotographer.com/leica180f2/highrez/f5.6_160th_iso200.jpg
a portrait, f2.8 iso 200:
http://cyberphotographer.com/leica180f2/highrez/f2.8_125th_iso200.jpg
and a couple more:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/mont.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/180aposummicron/gina2web.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/steph_lowrez.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/leica180f2/highrez/f2_8s_iso400.jpg
...at f5.6, iso 200:
http://cyberphotographer.com/leica180f2/highrez/f5.6_160th_iso200.jpg
a portrait, f2.8 iso 200:
http://cyberphotographer.com/leica180f2/highrez/f2.8_125th_iso200.jpg
and a couple more:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/mont.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/180aposummicron/gina2web.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/steph_lowrez.jpg
Oct 12, 2009 at 04:21 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.1 #9Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
...and as telyt predicted, I will offer my two cents: awesome though the 180 f2 is, optically I prefer Canon's 200 f1.8.
Oct 12, 2009 at 04:43 PM
p.1 #10Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
brainiac wrote:
and a couple more:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/mont.jpg
Chr*st, that looks like it was shot with 6x7 !!
and a couple more:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/mont.jpg
Chr*st, that looks like it was shot with 6x7 !!
Oct 12, 2009 at 09:50 PM
p.1 #11Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
See now, these posts and images should be illegal. They're too stunning for us ordinary photographers to handle. Our egos can't handle them.
Truly excellent work.
Truly excellent work.
Oct 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM
p.1 #12Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
I found these on flickr. They are from a Zeiss 135. I think the image quality is equal to that of the LEica
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:22 PM
p.1 #13Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
Jorge, I assume you mean the new Zeiss for the Sony but that's not clear in your post. Please clarify.
JJ
JJ
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:36 PM
p.1 #14Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
Yes. Thank you for the clarification. These are from the Zeiss 135 for the Sony alpha.
Oct 14, 2009 at 02:42 PM
p.1 #15Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
Do you refer to the Nikon 200/2 VR? If so, I'd certainly get this one. AF and VR are well worth it IMHO.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Oct 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM
p.1 #16Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
well, i've seen many beautiful images shot through a 200/2 VR. unfortuately my sony system has no access to it. the next best alternatives are leica 180/2 or contax 200/2. i was just curious at how similar they were.
Oct 16, 2009 at 09:33 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.1 #17Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
Empire wrote:
Chr*st, that looks like it was shot with 6x7 !!
It's actually a crop from a 5D frame. It was after I bought my first 5D that I decided to sell all my medium format gear (Rollei 6008 + Mamiya 6), so I know what you mean. The close-up performance of the 180 f2 (at 1.4 m) is stunning - incredible for a lens with such a wide front element.
Chr*st, that looks like it was shot with 6x7 !!
It's actually a crop from a 5D frame. It was after I bought my first 5D that I decided to sell all my medium format gear (Rollei 6008 + Mamiya 6), so I know what you mean. The close-up performance of the 180 f2 (at 1.4 m) is stunning - incredible for a lens with such a wide front element.
Oct 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM
p.1 #18Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
brainiac wrote:
The close-up performance of the 180 f2 (at 1.4 m) is stunning - incredible for a lens with such a wide front element.
The often overlooked benefit of that is that your focusing accuracy is also astounding. Partly because it is so sharp wide open and partly because of the bizzare ergonomics (the placement of the tripod collar relative to the very light and large focusing ring) and light focusing which allow you to focus accurately where ever you like. I normally shoot people wide open and at close range with this lens, R APO 180/2, and have very very few miss focused images.
JJ
The close-up performance of the 180 f2 (at 1.4 m) is stunning - incredible for a lens with such a wide front element.
The often overlooked benefit of that is that your focusing accuracy is also astounding. Partly because it is so sharp wide open and partly because of the bizzare ergonomics (the placement of the tripod collar relative to the very light and large focusing ring) and light focusing which allow you to focus accurately where ever you like. I normally shoot people wide open and at close range with this lens, R APO 180/2, and have very very few miss focused images.
JJ
Oct 16, 2009 at 04:06 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.1 #19Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
JohnJ wrote:
The often overlooked benefit of that is that your focusing accuracy is also astounding. Partly because it is so sharp wide open and partly because of the bizzare ergonomics (the placement of the tripod collar relative to the very light and large focusing ring) and light focusing which allow you to focus accurately where ever you like. I normally shoot people wide open and at close range with this lens, R APO 180/2, and have very very few miss focused images.
JJ
That's right - it is a low-light portrait photographer's wet dream.
brainiac wrote
The close-up performance of the 180 f2 (at 1.4 m) is stunning - incredible for a lens with such a wide front element.JJ
That's right - it is a low-light portrait photographer's wet dream.
Oct 17, 2009 at 04:50 AM
p.1 #20Leica 180/2.0 vs Nikon 200/2.0
how about contax zeiss 200/2.0 apo-sonnar? any sample shots?
Oct 17, 2009 at 07:17 PM