paulfeng wrote:
That is something I respect about Richard, that he is willing to change his position when presented with good evidence and/or argument.
--trajan
It has a flat field and is better suited for astrophotos. No c/a at f/2. Both canon lenses have purple fringing *in astrophotos* (an extreme case, regular daylight photos will revel nary a pixel of purple).
That said, I like the 200/2 better.. but that's what I have- never used the 1.8.
But this is the Canon section, I am not allowed to wax and swoon over Leica. The Leica 180/2 APO is the best ever 180/200 lens. In the running (top 3?) as the best ever lens. Has a nice feel, subjects pop into focus. I do MF for about 99.5% of my pix anyways. Great MFD. No need for an IR focus mark, all wavelengths focus the same. As sharp in the center as it is on the edge. As sharp wide open as it is stopped down. No CA, no PF. I got my mint used copy for about 1/2 of what a used Canon 200/1.8 or 2 would have cost me. Great color, contrast and bokeh. Besides AF and IS what else is there to pine over in a lens? And then there is that "Leica look."
gasrocks wrote:
And then there is that "Leica look."
Gene's post above remids me of an urge I get sometimes........to go over to the Alternative Forum and post a couple of images such as these and say to them something like this:
Here are a couple of pictures I obtained with the 20 year old Canon lens 200 f/1.8.
Can you show me some similar images you've got with Leica 180mm f/2 so that we may compare notes on lens performance.
gasrocks wrote:
If I only had a way to post pix, I could "easily" match/better those. But, hey , is it really supposed to be a contest?
I didn't really say "contest". I said "compare notes on lens performance". I mean, we frequently hear about that "Leica look". Well, I'd like to see some consistent examples of that "look".
In fact, to digress a bit from the topic, it doesn't even have to be a 180/200mm telephoto....we can compare a half-decent copy of EF 50mm f/1.0 against Noctilux. Again, probably the Alt. Board is the place where that sort of thing should be done, and perhaps they might have even done it before for superfast standard primes.
gasrocks wrote:
If I only had a way to post pix, I could "easily" match/better those. But, hey , is it really supposed to be a contest?
Hi gasrocks,
I'm looking at a Leica R 180/2 for around 2500 euros (= 3700 US-$) in good condition.
Good deal / bad deal ?
Maybe I missed your homepage or something but if you would be so kind to post some links to your pics I would very much appreciate it. I'd like this lens for candid portraits but maybe that's a complete misjudgement.
Allright for that kind of money I could get a very good high ISO camera and that would probably be the better investment (in fact a Pentax K-X would be fine + shake reduction). I've tried to find similar 'action' shots. These are heavy crops but anyway.
PetKal wrote:
I didn't really say "contest". I said "compare notes on lens performance". I mean, we frequently hear about that "Leica look". Well, I'd like to see some consistent examples of that "look". . . we can compare a half-decent copy of EF 50mm f/1.0 against Noctilux.
DavidP wrote:
I couldn't tell any substantial difference.
Except that I'd forgotten how much I hated film.
There you go.....
Except I have not forgotten how much I disliked film. It is the "immediacy" of digital imaging that won me over back to photography.
How about a little photo spoof. The first image shows the "Canon look" (200 f/1.8). The second image shows that venerable "Leica look". See how excited the albino Peregrine Falcon is to have his picture taken with Canon gear(s).
(Now, I am getting ready for the Leica hit squad to come my way. )
Yes, many people say the Leica look is a myth and/or can be gotten with some other lenses and a little PP. I now have DSL and can e-mail someone some images, I just do not have an account for posting pix on line. Maybe I will get around to that this winter on some day when I am bored. I laugh when one of my students comes over and ask to see the Leica 180. It is very heavy and I only use it hand held, so far. I am used to MF, something over 99% of my pix are MF. It is not a lens for everyone. But I love the results. I tried some TCs on it. With a non-Leica 2x TC I had to stop it down 1 stop to get back the IQ equal to no TC. I did try it with 3 TCs and just went wow.
gasrocks wrote:
If I only had a way to post pix, I could "easily" match/better those. But, hey , is it really supposed to be a contest?
www.imageshack.us , then copy the 'direct link' URL and paste it here. It's 100% free, immediate (no account needed). Let's see these shots, I'm excited if they're that much better then the amazing ones already posted!
I hope this isn't the last I hear from you gasrocks - the timing of you being too busy with the convenient uploader link posted for the photos would be too awful.
Hmmm.. Jeremy's flame baiting aside, is he possibly considering a 200/2 himself?
(s'okay Jeremy, its like a super 135L on steroids, and I know you love love love yer 135L, even though your GF uses/steals it a lot.... maybe I can 2nd for you and I'll let you play with it.... the lens, I mean.)
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Hmmm.. Jeremy's flame baiting aside, is he possibly considering a 200/2 himself?
(s'okay Jeremy, its like a super 135L on steroids, and I know you love love love yer 135L, even though your GF uses/steals it a lot.... maybe I can 2nd for you and I'll let you play with it.... the lens, I mean.)
Well, I do really want to see gasrock's shots, becaus I find petkal's VERY nice and if they're way better, I honestly would love to see them!
I've considered a 200L 2.8 to try out the FL, but I just find sometimes the 135 to be too close with what I do, so I haven't picked one before others yet.
)
