philip_pj wrote:
'Is the 35mm as sharp as or sharper than the 50mm I already own (sharpness is important for my work)?'
No it's not - even in the centre. Do you need all-of-frame sharpness, what aperture do you shoot at? Most wide angle/normal Leica R lenses have fall-off mid-frame, but strong central sharpness. And lovely bokeh, tonal transitions, colour purity, and much more that make them incomparable to Nikkor lenses IMOm, they are connoisseurs' lenses. Best cross-frame performance at 35mm in Leica R is the 35-70/4 zoom. But what you like/want in the 50/2 the 35/2 has, very likely...
Trade off's between the 35f2 prime and 35-70f4 zoom.
little distortion / distortion at 35
2.0 shooting / only f4
2.0 focusing / only f4 less accurate
corner sharpness: ok \ better
I carry the zoom quite a bit since adding it to my quiver. It really does a lot for me, very convenient. If I could have the performance of the 35 prime as part of the zoom, I would do it without hesitation. I don't find I use it much at f2 but at 2.8 it is great for group portraits.
Thanks for the answers, so between the 50mm and 35, I should go for the 50. The idea was that I need a wide angle lens. Found this Lens Elmarit-R 2,8/28 mm with serial 282... which makes it -77. But for a hefty price, $550usd. I think its little bit too much but anyway, is it worth it? Should i sell the 35 and go for the 28mm?
Thanks!
Just forgot to add that it makes the Elmarit-R 2,8/28 mm version 1 and I red somewhere that in that case it is needed of an extender or something? Won't it be good with the regular leica/nikon-f mount from Leitax?
The 28mm f2.8 everyone raves about is the V2, mehstein - think $$$$$. Most pass by the V1, but perhaps it's better than that?
Might be sacrilege to say so, but I suggest you look for a Contax Distagon 28mm f2.8 MM at the 28mm FL. 35mm is all over the place IMO IF you want/need flat field. Otherwise see comments and Leica R photos above!
Just wanted to let you folks know that today I listed my R lenses: 100/4 Macro, 135/2.8, 28-70 (latest model) and 2X extender on the FM B&S, if anyone is interested.
An update on the ninja star issue with the AE 180 discussed previously (see below): I just received the lens (S/N 3897xxx), and there is absolutely no sign of the issue. I'll post an image later. My guess is that the design of the aperture assembly changed in the year 2000 (beginning with S/N 3896xxx)...
Almass wrote:
I just looked up my lens sitting on my lap and it is with a S/N 389xxxx.
This is a version 1 serial number.
I also have another APO 180/2.8 which is version 2 but it is in my other house location.
I double checked E.Putts numbers and they list the S/N389xxxx as 1st version as well which is exactly like the one I have.
To cut a long story short, you should have clearly a Ninja aperture and I appreciate you trust your seller but he might have erred on the left side.
According to my modest powers of observations, the shot claimed at f4 is an f5.6 and the shot claimed at f11 is an f16.
The wall thickness between the glass and the body seems to be thicker than it should be.
Of course, I might be wrong and I hope I am wrong.
I think we better keep the jury out until you get the lens and do your own tests and publish here.
Ron Pfister wrote:
An update on the ninja star issue with the AE 180 discussed previously (see below): I just received the lens (S/N 3897xxx), and there is absolutely no sign of the issue. I'll post an image later. My guess is that the design of the aperture assembly changed in the year 2000 (beginning with S/N 3896xxx)...
You are mega-lucky man, Ron
Win from this thread have with s/n 38972xx and with terrible ninja!
Worldinlens wrote:
You are mega-lucky man, Ron
Win from this thread have with s/n 3897234 and with terrible ninja!
I guess this means that my theory about year ≥2000 and S/N ≥3896xxx is wrong. My AE 180 is definitely P/N 11273 (engraved on the barrel), has S/N 38974xx and was made in Germany (also engraved). Could it be that lenses made in Canada used a different aperture assembly?
Almass wrote:
According to my modest powers of observations, the shot claimed at f4 is an f5.6 and the shot claimed at f11 is an f16.
The wall thickness between the glass and the body seems to be thicker than it should be.
Of course, I might be wrong and I hope I am wrong.
I think we better keep the jury out until you get the lens and do your own tests and publish here.
The images I posted definitely represent f/4 through f/11 of the lens I received. I think what looks like a large wall thickness at the very front of the lens are actually baffles within the lens. The images I posted were taken with a 135mm lens and flash, and the DOF appears very shallow. As a result, you can't see a clear representation of what the front of the lens looks like. The images were definitely the real deal, though.
All said and done, I'm very happy to have found this particular sample, and I'm very grateful to all of you for your valued input and advice!
