jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Peire wrote:
When talking about money,I think that 180/4 Apo Lanthar is reaching the price level that is not reasonable for such lens.
That's why I don't have one now, but it's on my list.
It's an excellent lens. I've owned two of them in the past. Over time, I've evolved towards using IS lenses for most telephoto situations (used to be, CV 180/4 on a monopod, for travel). Recently though, I've been building up a collection of mostly-small, mostly manual focus, and all-awesome prime lenses for scenic shooting. Since getting the PC-Distagon 35/2.8, my T-S lens lineup is now complete. I'm pretty sure the PC-Distagon will also replace/displace the Zeiss 35/2 ZE that's in my non-TS lineup, because the un-shifted PC-Distagon should have much better edges, and this shift lens is relatively small; almost the same size (volume) as the 35/2 ZE.
OTOH, my Zeiss 25/2 ZE isn't being replaced by my TS-E 24/3.5L II, because the Zeiss is sharper at the edges (where it has some CA, the TS-E has none), and this Zeiss is much smaller than the TS-E (half the volume). I'll re-evaluate the 24mm/25mm situation after I get a high MPx body, later this year.
Anyway, my longest, smallish telephoto is now the Canon 200/2.8L II. It's an excellent lens, but the CV 180/4 is probably at least as good IQ-wise, and the CV is less than half the volume of the Canon (2.7x). Unfortunately, the CV is almost three times the price (3x). 
|
