leonasj wrote:
sorry,but i no see difference on leica r lenses vs 70-200vr or (modern) lens ,70-200 first handheld 100mm at 2.8 on D800E + you have VR + you have AF:
i read all forum leica R,sorry ,but some modern lens outperform lens R
sorry, i don't quite understand what you're saying – that picture is with a nikon lens correct?
certainly some modern lenses outperform some leica R lenses in some ways.
sebboh wrote:
sorry, i don't quite understand what you're saying – that picture is with a nikon lens correct?
certainly some modern lenses outperform some leica R lenses in some ways.
i say,that in good hands many many modern lens,that cost low and have VR,have AF outperforms leica R lenses....and its true
i just bought R28 2.8 V2,still waiting when it arrives to me,want compare it to my tokina 17-35mm f/4 at 2.8 vs R28.Just want to say you that tokina performs nikon 24mm f/1.4G at f/4at all -sharping,contrast and colors.
sebboh wrote:
ah, i understand what you are trying to say now.
i just bought R28 2.8 V2,still waiting when it arrives to me,want compare it to my tokina 17-35mm f/4 at f/4 vs R28.Just want to say you that tokina performs nikon 24mm f/1.4G at f/4at all -sharping,contrast and colors.
leonasj wrote:
i just bought R28 2.8 V2,still waiting when it arrives to me,want compare it to my tokina 17-35mm f/4 at 2.8 vs R28.Just want to say you that tokina performs nikon 24mm f/1.4G at f/4at all -sharping,contrast and colors.
i'd be curious to see a comparison between the leica and tokina. the nikkor versus tokina comparison would be better on a different thread than this.
leonasj wrote:
sorry,but i no see difference leica r lenses vs ,etc,70-200vr or (modern nikon) lens ,picture taken on 70-200mm vr first ,handheld at 100mm at 2.8 on D800E + you have VR + you have AF,no sharpening:
i read all forum leica R,sorry ,but some modern lens all head outperform lens R
Then there are some 20 and 30 year old Leica R lens that may perform as well or close to the performance of the more modern lenses such as the more modern Nikon lens. And the Leica lenses may also produce better color and Bokeh than the more modern lenses and additionally focus more easily in manual focus. Then there are certain Leica R lenses that will still outperform the more modern Nikon lenses such as the the Leica f2.8 100mm Macro Apo Elmarit and the 280mm f4 Apo Telty lenses.
of course,i upload my test photos. sebboh wrote:
i'd be curious to see a comparison between the leica and tokina. the nikkor versus tokina comparison would be better on a different thread than this.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Then there are some 20 and 30 year old Leica R lens that may perform as well or close to the performance of the more modern lenses such as the more modern Nikon lens. And the Leica lenses may also produce better color and Bokeh than the more modern lenses and additionally focus more easily in manual focus. Then there are certain Leica R lenses that will still outperform the more modern Nikon lenses such as the the Leica f2.8 100mm Macro Apo Elmarit and the 280mm f4 Apo Telty lenses.
Rich
i had 4/280mm telyt and it on D700 was perfect,but on D800 is same as my sigma 500mm F/4.5+i have AF,and i think telyt will be outperformed D800E+ nikkor 300 2.8 AFS at f/4 or 500mm f/4 at f/4...i think no comparison-,so,nikon 200mm f/2 VR is sharpest world telephoto lens
leonasj wrote:
i had 4/280mm telyt and it on D700 was perfect,but on D800 is same as my sigma 500mm F/4.5+i have AF
Something doesn't sound right with that. Others that I have heard about with the f4 280mm Apo Telyt on the D800 have reported spectacular results. It is one of the sharpest if not the sharpest telephoto lens ever made regardless of make. Of course there is variation in specimen to specimen.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Something doesn't sound right with that. Others that I have heard about with the f4 280mm Apo Telyt on the D800 have reported spectacular results. It is one of the sharpest if not the sharpest telephoto lens ever made regardless of make. Of course there is variation in specimen to specimen.
There is apparently a bad copy of the 280/4 floating around. Perhaps you had that one. The 200/2 VR is excellent (I had one), but I doubt very much that it is sharper than the 280/4.
leonasj wrote:
sharpest no conquerence is nikkor 200mm f/2 VR
It is possible that the Nikkor 200mm f2 VR is sharper than the f4 280 Apo Telty. The Nikkor 200mm F2 VR is a monster of a lens being 1055g heavier and 36mm larger in diameter though 5mm shorter in length and 80mm shorter in focal length than the f4 280mm Apo Telyt lens. Sharpness is not everything. Though the f4 280mm Apo may be among the sharpest lenses in the 280mm and longer focal length lenses it is much more portable and hand holdable, etc. than the Nikon. The Nikon used and new is selling in the range of the used f4 Apo Telyt lens. For myself, and my purposes, I would (and did) take the Leica.
Of course anything is possible, but I don't think it is likely. I had the 200/2 VR and it was an excellent lens, but my Leica 180/2 was very, very close in sharpness, and the 280/4 ought to be a lot easier to design than the 180/2.
Anyway, it is not possible to make valid statistical conclusion based on a sample of one, so we need more data points from people who have owned both. One day I will also own a 280/4. Then I can add another data point myself. Note that I am both a Nikkor and a Leica fan, so I have no emotions invested either way.
But does anyone really care? These are two of the best lenses made ever.
Guys, Leica R a long time not the winner in optical quality, even many modern zooms better.. It no has ED glass and another modern options and coatings. But Leica this is a nice compromise between optical quality and unique anti-quality (bokeh) and I like it. This is philosophy and very interesting part of my life.
Worldinlens wrote:
Guys, Leica R a long time not the winner in optical quality, even many modern zooms better.. It no has ED glass and another modern options and coatings. But Leica this is a nice compromise between optical quality and unique anti-quality (bokeh) and I like it. This is philosophy and very interesting part of my life.
A lot of Leica R lenses are Apo and some are aspheric. Several M lenses are an Apo and some are Aspheric. Many Leica lenses have ED or other special glasses that have gone into their design. Many of Leica lenses use many different kinds of glasses and they do and did have excellent coatings on their optics that as I recall are and normally were applied to all of the optical surfaces and the optics are hand blackened around their edges (if memory serves). Many of the older R lenses and their newer zooms and other optics still stack up well as more modern designs though some of the newer designs may be sharper. Mechanically I know of no other line of lens that is made to these standards and "feel".
naturephoto1 wrote:
A lot of Leica R lenses are Apo and some are aspheric. Several M lenses are an Apo and some are Aspheric. Many have ED or other special glasses that have gone into their design. Many of Leica lenses use many different kinds of glasses and they do and did have excellent coatings on their optics that as I recall are and normally were applied to all of the optical surfaces and the optics are hand blackened around their edges (if memory serves). Many of the older R lenses and their newer zooms and other optics still stack up well as more modern designs though some of the newer designs may be sharper. Mechanically I know of no other line of lens that is made to these standards and "feel".
Rich, I'm not about apo-tele range of Leica-R. This is another story... I'm about R35-90/1.4-2.0 lenses range, this very interesting "bokeh" range of Leica-R
Apo-lenses has extremely optical quality for time, when they made. Even for this time.
leonasj wrote: ...but some modern lens all head outperform lens R
Perhaps, but is it really the point? See Worldinlens remark that sums it all - it's all about the ALT aspect of lenses that is most appealing to many photographers, not necessarily the best/technically perfect scenario.
By the same token grainy, colour-imperfect film photography is still appealing as well. Hell, digital media are technically superior to film and vinyl, but the experience of watching scratchy movie on a big screen or listening to well pressed vinyl music on 1950s valve equipment may be more involving and unique to many.
leonasj wrote:
sorry,but i no see difference leica r lenses vs ,etc,70-200vr or (modern nikon) lens
I guess this is the most compact version of your sentence. There are certainly differences, both in rendering and other ways, even if you don't see them. Colours from Leica lenses are typically better than Canon or Nikkor lenses, and even than Zeiss lenses. The resolution is very high, although more subtle than in Zeiss lenses, but of course, purely for resolution or sharpness, you are right, there are some L or Nikkor lenses which are as sharp as some R lenses.
An intangible benefit of many Leica lenses is also their handling and build. Leica spends significant resources making compact lenses which handle very well. If you look at the Leica 180/2 vs. the Nikkor 200/2, it is *much* smaller, 500g lighter, and handles much better. The built-in hood, the real lens cap, and the shape where the hand holds it are much better designed, and for the tripod foot there is just no comparison, the Leica's is awesome and the Nikkor's is lacking, and of course the same is true for manual focus. The Leica is just butter smooth, unbelievable really for a lens of that size.
Don't get me wrong, Nikon makes some great lenses with top performance, but there *is* a difference.
