This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
p.1 #1Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
I need help choosing between the Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica APO 180 f3.4.
I need it for wide open use, I know the Leica is excellent wide open but suffers from vignetting.
How is the Mamiya at f2.8 or even f4 compared to the leica?
Or, is there anything better in this focal lenght for the 5D II for under $1000?
thanks!
I need it for wide open use, I know the Leica is excellent wide open but suffers from vignetting.
How is the Mamiya at f2.8 or even f4 compared to the leica?
Or, is there anything better in this focal lenght for the 5D II for under $1000?
thanks!
Jul 13, 2010 at 04:34 AM
p.1 #2Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
I can't thank you enough for the reply.
This is the small detail info i was looking for. Including the fact of the extension tube.
This is the small detail info i was looking for. Including the fact of the extension tube.
Jul 13, 2010 at 06:40 AM
p.1 #3Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
+1 what Jim said.
Also the Mamiya rubber hood designed for the RB67 127-250mm (also often used by 70-200 EF users) can be used as an extension on the Mamiya's built in hood for a bit more flare protection (not that it really needs it) for a LOT less bulk than the hard white extension on the Mamiya.
I never tried the APO-Telyt with an extender (can't even remember if there is enough rear element clearance to take one - an issue on all but the last Leica 180/2.8 APOs) as I moved on from the Telyt to the CV 180 APO and Leica 180/2.8 APO, but the Mamiya takes a 1.4x (in my case EF 1.4x Mk1) VERY well even wide open.
The Mamiya is obviously larger than the Telyt due to the diameter of the elements, but as Jim's data shows, the Telyt is deceptively heavy. 'Dense' would be an apt description. The Telyt was originally developed for the US Navy for use from surveillance aircraft and was optimized for work near or at infinity and was/is a fave for landscape shooters.
Though near distance performance, while very still strong and APO corrected, is not as great (corrected with the 180/2.8 APO that superseded it) as at longer distances (one reason why I sold mine), it like the Mamiya, are legendary within their respective lines and made 'old school' - all metal, smooth & no slop focus, authoritative aperture movement and nice durable finishes.
While there isn't much in way of hard reviews of the Mamiya out there, the PDF (text only) version of Erwin Puts' Leica Lens Compendium (one of the go-to bibles for Leica M and R glass) is available for free download here and is a great resource to take the time to wade through (his English is a bit rough) if thinking of Leica glass and wanting data on lens design consideration, lens history, testing, etc and his discusses the various Leica 180 options.
While a die-hard Leica fan, his discussion about differences BETWEEN Leica lenses is worthwhile very objective . Between Leica and others, not so much ;>. slrlensreview.com has a test of the Telyt if you've not seen it :
http://www.imx.nl/photo/downloads/page70.html
Edited on Jul 13, 2010 at 07:42 AM · View previous versions
Also the Mamiya rubber hood designed for the RB67 127-250mm (also often used by 70-200 EF users) can be used as an extension on the Mamiya's built in hood for a bit more flare protection (not that it really needs it) for a LOT less bulk than the hard white extension on the Mamiya.
I never tried the APO-Telyt with an extender (can't even remember if there is enough rear element clearance to take one - an issue on all but the last Leica 180/2.8 APOs) as I moved on from the Telyt to the CV 180 APO and Leica 180/2.8 APO, but the Mamiya takes a 1.4x (in my case EF 1.4x Mk1) VERY well even wide open.
The Mamiya is obviously larger than the Telyt due to the diameter of the elements, but as Jim's data shows, the Telyt is deceptively heavy. 'Dense' would be an apt description. The Telyt was originally developed for the US Navy for use from surveillance aircraft and was optimized for work near or at infinity and was/is a fave for landscape shooters.
Though near distance performance, while very still strong and APO corrected, is not as great (corrected with the 180/2.8 APO that superseded it) as at longer distances (one reason why I sold mine), it like the Mamiya, are legendary within their respective lines and made 'old school' - all metal, smooth & no slop focus, authoritative aperture movement and nice durable finishes.
While there isn't much in way of hard reviews of the Mamiya out there, the PDF (text only) version of Erwin Puts' Leica Lens Compendium (one of the go-to bibles for Leica M and R glass) is available for free download here and is a great resource to take the time to wade through (his English is a bit rough) if thinking of Leica glass and wanting data on lens design consideration, lens history, testing, etc and his discusses the various Leica 180 options.
While a die-hard Leica fan, his discussion about differences BETWEEN Leica lenses is worthwhile very objective . Between Leica and others, not so much ;>. slrlensreview.com has a test of the Telyt if you've not seen it :
http://www.imx.nl/photo/downloads/page70.html
Edited on Jul 13, 2010 at 07:42 AM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2010 at 06:57 AM
p.1 #4Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
Can't speak for the Mamiya but I own the Leica 180/3.4 APO. At near and medium distances, it's nothing special. In this review, http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/leica-slr-lenses-133/telephoto-slr-lenses-140/423-leica-apo-telyt-r-180mm-f34-e60-lens-review.html the lens is shot at these distances and pretty much speaks to that. It was designed for use by the US Navy for maritime surveillance and where it excels is at infinity and near-infinity focus. The contrast is lower but the sharpness across the frame, peaking at f/5.6 is outstanding, especially for a lens designed in the 1970's. I have also found it particularly impressive in dim light light where the lower contrast pulls out amazing detail from the shadows. Even at f/3.4, the detail in the corners really shine when using it for landscapes and far objects. Another option is the CV 180/4 APO. This lens is a knockout at near and medium distances as well as compact. No EOS version was made so you'd need an adapter. Cosina appears to be releasing the Voigtlanders so a new EOS version is likely to follow.
Jul 13, 2010 at 07:41 AM
p.1 #5Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
While Jim and I disagree on the 180 CV ( 
), it is also a lens I would HIGHLY recommend as an option (via adapter until the SLII version is out). That said, if you go that route watch the price. Whereas the Mamiya and Telyt prices are climbing as they're no longer in production and the CV's have soared vs their original selling price, a re-release of the 180 (and 125) if/when it occurs will hit existing SL1 prices. I stupidly sold mine and am anxiously awaiting the SLII version (or a clean nicely priced SL1 if anyone has one.....
)
If you are willing to forgo a bit of FL and can settle for near-APO vs APO, the $300 M645 150/2.8A (uses ULD glass) is a great options and a hell of a lens.
), it is also a lens I would HIGHLY recommend as an option (via adapter until the SLII version is out). That said, if you go that route watch the price. Whereas the Mamiya and Telyt prices are climbing as they're no longer in production and the CV's have soared vs their original selling price, a re-release of the 180 (and 125) if/when it occurs will hit existing SL1 prices. I stupidly sold mine and am anxiously awaiting the SLII version (or a clean nicely priced SL1 if anyone has one..... )If you are willing to forgo a bit of FL and can settle for near-APO vs APO, the $300 M645 150/2.8A (uses ULD glass) is a great options and a hell of a lens.
Jul 13, 2010 at 07:49 AM
p.1 #6Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
I have a simple question, as I am a newb alt. glass user.
Is medium format APO glass still APO if used on a 35 mm system?
I kinda guess it is, as the adapter is supposed to align the sensor plane distance, or no?
Is medium format APO glass still APO if used on a 35 mm system?
I kinda guess it is, as the adapter is supposed to align the sensor plane distance, or no?
Jul 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM
p.1 #8Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
jcolwell wrote:
...I'll post comparison images later today, after I get back from work.
or maybe later...
...I'll post comparison images later today, after I get back from work.
or maybe later...
Jul 13, 2010 at 05:09 PM
p.1 #9Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
Conner999 wrote:
If you are willing to forgo a bit of FL and can settle for near-APO vs APO, the $300 M645 150/2.8A (uses ULD glass) is a great options and a hell of a lens.
I looked for more info on the 150 but could'nt find much. How good is it? lets say compared to canon 135 f2 and is the color rendering as good as the 200 APO?
I'm more of a portrait guy than landscape, so the minimum focus of 1.5M really appeals to me. Also, i already have the Zeiss 100f2 ze, but looking for something with longer FL but very close in performance to the ZE.
If you are willing to forgo a bit of FL and can settle for near-APO vs APO, the $300 M645 150/2.8A (uses ULD glass) is a great options and a hell of a lens.
I looked for more info on the 150 but could'nt find much. How good is it? lets say compared to canon 135 f2 and is the color rendering as good as the 200 APO?
I'm more of a portrait guy than landscape, so the minimum focus of 1.5M really appeals to me. Also, i already have the Zeiss 100f2 ze, but looking for something with longer FL but very close in performance to the ZE.
Jul 18, 2010 at 02:41 PM
p.1 #10Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
aceshooter wrote:
I looked for more info on the 150 but could'nt find much. How good is it?
This good: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/882423/21#8627479
There are some images from RustyBug (and a few others I guess) on other pages.
I looked for more info on the 150 but could'nt find much. How good is it?
This good: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/882423/21#8627479
There are some images from RustyBug (and a few others I guess) on other pages.
Jul 18, 2010 at 02:46 PM
p.1 #11Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
AhamB wrote:
This good: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/882423/21#8627479
There are some images from RustyBug (and a few others I guess) on other pages.
One of my first shots with the 150 2.8 A
Tones, tones & more tones ...
NOTE: I shoot RAW, so all have had my flavor of PP, but the files are a joy to work on because of how the transitions (tones/sharpness) can be worked. Others are likely to have more ooc jpg than I ... so their camera's processing will definitely render this lens different than I do in post ... but it is definitely a lens that I keep close by.
I don't shoot portrait, but as noted by others elsewhere, the 150 2.8 A is a little less contrasty than the 200 2.8 APO which (imo) is better for portraits, but it also responds very well to pp so if you want to add some punch, it does so without looking overcooked. My copy is anything but mint, but I won't sell it because it would only mean I'd have to go buy another one ... and pay double (or more) what I got mine for.
PP on shots from M645 glass is always like digging for buried treasure with a map ... it's amazing what you can find in there that the camera didn't (RAW + jpg) if you'll just dig a little ... much more so than PP with any of my other Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, Canon or Tamron glass. My Zeiss does give me a bit more 3D-ish jump start for PP, but nothing I have compares with my M645 glass once you start digging for tones in post.
Now all I have to do is get GOOD in pp.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3512/3765881317_af60b037ac_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/3844934209_325f222108_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/3759985983_ae1092ffc2.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1293/4661508794_ac0a9879ea_b.jpg.
Edited on Jul 19, 2010 at 07:24 AM · View previous versions
aceshooter wrote
I looked for more info on the 150 but could'nt find much. How good is it?There are some images from RustyBug (and a few others I guess) on other pages.
One of my first shots with the 150 2.8 A
Tones, tones & more tones ...
NOTE: I shoot RAW, so all have had my flavor of PP, but the files are a joy to work on because of how the transitions (tones/sharpness) can be worked. Others are likely to have more ooc jpg than I ... so their camera's processing will definitely render this lens different than I do in post ... but it is definitely a lens that I keep close by.
I don't shoot portrait, but as noted by others elsewhere, the 150 2.8 A is a little less contrasty than the 200 2.8 APO which (imo) is better for portraits, but it also responds very well to pp so if you want to add some punch, it does so without looking overcooked. My copy is anything but mint, but I won't sell it because it would only mean I'd have to go buy another one ... and pay double (or more) what I got mine for.
PP on shots from M645 glass is always like digging for buried treasure with a map ... it's amazing what you can find in there that the camera didn't (RAW + jpg) if you'll just dig a little ... much more so than PP with any of my other Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, Canon or Tamron glass. My Zeiss does give me a bit more 3D-ish jump start for PP, but nothing I have compares with my M645 glass once you start digging for tones in post.
Now all I have to do is get GOOD in pp.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3512/3765881317_af60b037ac_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/3844934209_325f222108_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/3759985983_ae1092ffc2.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1293/4661508794_ac0a9879ea_b.jpg.
Edited on Jul 19, 2010 at 07:24 AM · View previous versions
Jul 18, 2010 at 04:43 PM
p.1 #12Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
The 150 is very close in performance to the 135 at comparable apertures. The 135 is often described as the most Leica-like in terms of rendering within the Canon line (which i'd agree with) and the 150A renders in a similar vein and I'd have no issues choosing one or the other strictly on the basis of resolving power.
Ace- you touch on a point with your ZE100 refernce that I want to address and this is NOT at you:
One thing I say often to fans of Zeiss lenses (and I've owned many myself in various forms) - if you like the 'Zeiss look' out of camera (strong saturation and deep contrast), only Zeiss T* glass (Z_, Hassy, Contax, etc) will give it to you. Other glass, be they M645, Leica or CV, etc WILL NOT. Period. Full stop. Ever. The 3D effect while more common in Zeiss glass can readily be seen in shots from any number of lenses among lines, but that T* coating look out-of-camera is unique (that I know of) to Zeiss-based lenses.
Had to say it because as I keep seeing see shooters, clearly Zeiss fans (no harm there), buying M645, CV, Leica lenses and then posting how disappointed they were that said lens, while sharp, didn't have that 'Zeiss rendering', etc., out of camera. Well, at the risk of pointing out the obvious...
Laving resolving power aside as it will vary by lenses within any given line, M645 glass delivers a neutral 'as remembered' contrast level with accurate colors and great tonality within shades with nice open shadow detail. Mamiya N lenses tend to be a bit more contrasty than older C coating lenses and in turn Mamiya APO (white barrel) glass vs. 'A" or ULD/near-APO glass (though some of the latter are VERY VERY APOesque in CA control) tend to have a bit more saturation and contrast than as is typical for an "N" lens.
In terms of the closest analog in M645 to the 100/2 Z_ (which I've owned) in a slightly longer FL, I'd pick the 120/4A macro (or the 200APO if you want to go longer). Both edge ahead of the 150A despite the latter's strengths. The new 150/2.8 AD electronic aperture control only re-design of the M645 150A is supposedly a barn-burner, but cannot be adapted to DSLR use.
aceshooter wrote:
I looked for more info on the 150 but could'nt find much. How good is it? lets say compared to canon 135 f2 and is the color rendering as good as the 200 APO?
I'm more of a portrait guy than landscape, so the minimum focus of 1.5M really appeals to me. Also, i already have the Zeiss 100f2 ze, but looking for something with longer FL but very close in performance to the ZE.
Ace- you touch on a point with your ZE100 refernce that I want to address and this is NOT at you:
One thing I say often to fans of Zeiss lenses (and I've owned many myself in various forms) - if you like the 'Zeiss look' out of camera (strong saturation and deep contrast), only Zeiss T* glass (Z_, Hassy, Contax, etc) will give it to you. Other glass, be they M645, Leica or CV, etc WILL NOT. Period. Full stop. Ever. The 3D effect while more common in Zeiss glass can readily be seen in shots from any number of lenses among lines, but that T* coating look out-of-camera is unique (that I know of) to Zeiss-based lenses.
Had to say it because as I keep seeing see shooters, clearly Zeiss fans (no harm there), buying M645, CV, Leica lenses and then posting how disappointed they were that said lens, while sharp, didn't have that 'Zeiss rendering', etc., out of camera. Well, at the risk of pointing out the obvious...
Laving resolving power aside as it will vary by lenses within any given line, M645 glass delivers a neutral 'as remembered' contrast level with accurate colors and great tonality within shades with nice open shadow detail. Mamiya N lenses tend to be a bit more contrasty than older C coating lenses and in turn Mamiya APO (white barrel) glass vs. 'A" or ULD/near-APO glass (though some of the latter are VERY VERY APOesque in CA control) tend to have a bit more saturation and contrast than as is typical for an "N" lens.
In terms of the closest analog in M645 to the 100/2 Z_ (which I've owned) in a slightly longer FL, I'd pick the 120/4A macro (or the 200APO if you want to go longer). Both edge ahead of the 150A despite the latter's strengths. The new 150/2.8 AD electronic aperture control only re-design of the M645 150A is supposedly a barn-burner, but cannot be adapted to DSLR use.
aceshooter wrote:
Conner999 wrote
If you are willing to forgo a bit of FL and can settle for near-APO vs APO, the $300 M645 150/2.8A (uses ULD glass) is a great options and a hell of a lens.I'm more of a portrait guy than landscape, so the minimum focus of 1.5M really appeals to me. Also, i already have the Zeiss 100f2 ze, but looking for something with longer FL but very close in performance to the ZE.
Jul 19, 2010 at 05:51 AM
p.1 #13Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
Conner999 wrote:
if you like the 'Zeiss look' out of camera (strong saturation and deep contrast), only Zeiss T* glass (Z_, Hassy, Contax, etc) will give it to you.
M645 glass delivers a neutral 'as remembered' contrast level with accurate colors and great tonality within shades with nice open shadow detail.
+1 ... very well stated.
I have both and like both ... it's just a matter of preference, but if you are PLANNING to shoot for post, the neutrality, contrast, color and tonality of the M645 glass give you so much to work with. If you want that Zeiss look sooc (or any mfr's look), go with it.
I have put my M645 & Zeiss head-to-head ... wanting the M645 to yield more Zeiss look than Zeiss sooc ... not gonna happen.
if you like the 'Zeiss look' out of camera (strong saturation and deep contrast), only Zeiss T* glass (Z_, Hassy, Contax, etc) will give it to you.
M645 glass delivers a neutral 'as remembered' contrast level with accurate colors and great tonality within shades with nice open shadow detail.
+1 ... very well stated.
I have both and like both ... it's just a matter of preference, but if you are PLANNING to shoot for post, the neutrality, contrast, color and tonality of the M645 glass give you so much to work with. If you want that Zeiss look sooc (or any mfr's look), go with it.
I have put my M645 & Zeiss head-to-head ... wanting the M645 to yield more Zeiss look than Zeiss sooc ... not gonna happen.
Jul 19, 2010 at 07:16 AM
p.1 #14Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
Thanks RB. As you say, use the right brush for the intended job.
Jul 19, 2010 at 07:35 AM
p.1 #15Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
Does anyone have any insight as to how the Nikon 180/2.8 ED and the Contax 180/2.8 measure up to the Mamiya 200/2.8 or the Leica 180/3.4?
Jul 19, 2010 at 08:37 PM
p.1 #16Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
I think Jim was shooting with the C/Y 180 2.8 for a while. I demo'd one and it had a bit of green fringe (readily visible & repeatable), so I passed. Couldn't say if it was bad copy, 
or representative.
or representative.Jul 19, 2010 at 08:51 PM
p.1 #17Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
CVickery wrote:
Does anyone have any insight as to how the Nikon 180/2.8 ED and the Contax 180/2.8 measure up to the Mamiya 200/2.8 or the Leica 180/3.4?
Yes and no. I've never had the Mamiya 200, so no comment there. I've had the Nikon 180/2.8 ED (ais, not the later AF models) and the Contax 180/2.8 at various times and still have the Leica 180/3.4. My NIkon may have been a dud because I really don't have anything nice to say about. It was brand new (one owner, me) and not beaten to death. The NIkon never really stood out in any way whatsoever yet I know that many people like it alot. The Contax 180/2.8 was OK but also nothing special, but definitely sharper than the Nikon and was less contrasty so it had a nicer tonality about it. There's a weird thing about the Contax mount where that lens, the 180/2.8, would pull away from the mount and spring back if you ran with the lens and camera around your neck. It's quite disconcerting really. I never had them (Contax and NIkon) at the same time to compare properly. The Leica R 180/3.4 is a much better lens than both of them for landscape work, it's considerably sharper than either the Nikon or Contax, but the min 2.5m focusing distance is a ball buster for any kind of portrait photography. In the 15 years I've had that lens I've hardly ever used it at close range but then I have the Leica R 180/2 for that (MFD of 1.5m).
JJ
Does anyone have any insight as to how the Nikon 180/2.8 ED and the Contax 180/2.8 measure up to the Mamiya 200/2.8 or the Leica 180/3.4?
Yes and no. I've never had the Mamiya 200, so no comment there. I've had the Nikon 180/2.8 ED (ais, not the later AF models) and the Contax 180/2.8 at various times and still have the Leica 180/3.4. My NIkon may have been a dud because I really don't have anything nice to say about. It was brand new (one owner, me) and not beaten to death. The NIkon never really stood out in any way whatsoever yet I know that many people like it alot. The Contax 180/2.8 was OK but also nothing special, but definitely sharper than the Nikon and was less contrasty so it had a nicer tonality about it. There's a weird thing about the Contax mount where that lens, the 180/2.8, would pull away from the mount and spring back if you ran with the lens and camera around your neck. It's quite disconcerting really. I never had them (Contax and NIkon) at the same time to compare properly. The Leica R 180/3.4 is a much better lens than both of them for landscape work, it's considerably sharper than either the Nikon or Contax, but the min 2.5m focusing distance is a ball buster for any kind of portrait photography. In the 15 years I've had that lens I've hardly ever used it at close range but then I have the Leica R 180/2 for that (MFD of 1.5m).
JJ
Jul 19, 2010 at 09:27 PM
p.1 #18Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
RustyBug wrote:
I think Jim was shooting with the C/Y 180 2.8 for a while. I demo'd one and it had a bit of green fringe (readily visible & repeatable), so I passed. Couldn't say if it was bad copy, or representative.
This is correct.I shot with the Zeiss Sonnar 180 and Rusty Bug is correct the green fringing in mostly seen in the OOF areas in the background etc was a real bummer,also IMO it was harder to focus this lens than others.Other than that it was a nice lens.Typical Zeiss rendering and very capable of the 3D pop.A lens i had for a brief time was the CZJena 180 f2.8 Olympia version and IMO it was a better lens than the Sonnar 180 great bokeh,and color and images just popped in and out of focus.The Mamiya is a much better lens than both, great color very sharp WO and NO CA that i have seen.The only negative to the Mamiya 200 is its MFD of 8ft! takes a little getting used to.
-JIm
I think Jim was shooting with the C/Y 180 2.8 for a while. I demo'd one and it had a bit of green fringe (readily visible & repeatable), so I passed. Couldn't say if it was bad copy,
or representative.This is correct.I shot with the Zeiss Sonnar 180 and Rusty Bug is correct the green fringing in mostly seen in the OOF areas in the background etc was a real bummer,also IMO it was harder to focus this lens than others.Other than that it was a nice lens.Typical Zeiss rendering and very capable of the 3D pop.A lens i had for a brief time was the CZJena 180 f2.8 Olympia version and IMO it was a better lens than the Sonnar 180 great bokeh,and color and images just popped in and out of focus.The Mamiya is a much better lens than both, great color very sharp WO and NO CA that i have seen.The only negative to the Mamiya 200 is its MFD of 8ft! takes a little getting used to.
-JIm
Jul 20, 2010 at 05:24 AM
p.1 #19Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
It's been a number of years since I've owned a Nikon 180/2.8 (ED) and while it's a 'nice' lens (think 'nice' as in the 'nice' you get as a response when you ask your buddy what your blind date looks like), but either of the Leica or Mamiya knock it on it's a**. The Leica much more so at distance, it's raison d'être, as at closer range while APO corrected, the gap between it and the Nikon narrows.
LLoyd Chambers once described the Leica 180/2.8 APO as being as sharp WO as the Nikon 180 is at F8 (which I'd agree with) and while the Mamiya and Telyt (at distance) wouldn't be quite as dramatic (the Leica 180/2.8 APO's a $%^& stunner WO) , they (and the CV 180/4) would be very, very close.
LLoyd Chambers once described the Leica 180/2.8 APO as being as sharp WO as the Nikon 180 is at F8 (which I'd agree with) and while the Mamiya and Telyt (at distance) wouldn't be quite as dramatic (the Leica 180/2.8 APO's a $%^& stunner WO) , they (and the CV 180/4) would be very, very close.
Jul 20, 2010 at 06:08 AM
p.1 #20Mamiya APO 200 f/2.8 or Leica 180 f3.4?
Comparing the
Mamiya f/2.8 200mm APO with Canon EOS f/2.8 200mm L
and
Mamiya f/2.8 150mm APO with Canon EOS f/2.8 135mm L
what are the differences besides AF ?
I am asking, because I am still considering to buy the two Canon lenses within the next
12 months or so. But I have read this thread with great interest and I wonder if the
IQ of the two Mamiyas (incl. bokeh, natural color rendering, resoluion micro contrast)
might be better than the Canon lenses. I don't mind manual focussing since
most of my glass is manual.
The Mamiyas incl. the expensive adapter seem to be still cheaper than the Canons.
I am using Canon 5D aspiring for the 5DII.
Mamiya f/2.8 200mm APO with Canon EOS f/2.8 200mm L
and
Mamiya f/2.8 150mm APO with Canon EOS f/2.8 135mm L
what are the differences besides AF ?
I am asking, because I am still considering to buy the two Canon lenses within the next
12 months or so. But I have read this thread with great interest and I wonder if the
IQ of the two Mamiyas (incl. bokeh, natural color rendering, resoluion micro contrast)
might be better than the Canon lenses. I don't mind manual focussing since
most of my glass is manual.
The Mamiyas incl. the expensive adapter seem to be still cheaper than the Canons.
I am using Canon 5D aspiring for the 5DII.
Aug 18, 2010 at 10:19 PM