This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
p.1 #1Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
I am looking at 180mm lenses and was wondering how these two compared. The 3.4 is a lot cheaper! I just wanted to know how the sharpness, microcontrast, and CA compared. I would probably use either lens at f/5.6 or greater, so sharpness wide-open is not a huge concern.
Cheers,
Dan
Cheers,
Dan
Apr 05, 2011 at 10:36 AM
p.1 #2Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
I had 180/3.4 Apo Telyt R for some time.What a great lens.Excellent overall IQ (sharpness,microcontrast,no visible CAs and distortions) on both FF and crop,solid,build in hood.The only thing I disliked was min. focus distance of 1.8m.
Apr 05, 2011 at 10:59 AM
p.1 #3Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
IMHO the most significant differences are handling, minimum focus distance and bokeh.
Handling: The f/2.8 is an internal-focus lens with very little resistance to turning, the f/3.4's focus ring has more resistance and is not as easy to turn accidentally. A couple of rotating tripod collar options are available for the f/2.8, and later versions of the f/2.8 can use the Leica 1.4x APO-Extender-R. Early versions of the f/3.4 use Series 7.5 filters which can be difficult to find.
Minimum focus: the f/3.4's minimum focus distance is rather long, and the optical performance drops a little at close distances.
Bokeh: the f/3.4 can be a bit harsh at times, the f/2.8 is smooth & creamy.
I have not seen any CA in either lens, sharpness & microcontrast wide-open is exceptional at longer distances with the f/3.4, and at any distance with the f/2.8. The f/3.4 needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or so for even illumination, otherwise use the aperture on either lens for DOF control only.
f/3.4 sample on Kodachrome 64:
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/horses/pete00.jpg
f/2.8 sample with Leica DMR:
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/trsw01.jpg
Handling: The f/2.8 is an internal-focus lens with very little resistance to turning, the f/3.4's focus ring has more resistance and is not as easy to turn accidentally. A couple of rotating tripod collar options are available for the f/2.8, and later versions of the f/2.8 can use the Leica 1.4x APO-Extender-R. Early versions of the f/3.4 use Series 7.5 filters which can be difficult to find.
Minimum focus: the f/3.4's minimum focus distance is rather long, and the optical performance drops a little at close distances.
Bokeh: the f/3.4 can be a bit harsh at times, the f/2.8 is smooth & creamy.
I have not seen any CA in either lens, sharpness & microcontrast wide-open is exceptional at longer distances with the f/3.4, and at any distance with the f/2.8. The f/3.4 needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or so for even illumination, otherwise use the aperture on either lens for DOF control only.
f/3.4 sample on Kodachrome 64:
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/horses/pete00.jpg
f/2.8 sample with Leica DMR:
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/trsw01.jpg
Apr 05, 2011 at 11:08 AM
p.1 #4Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
Tested the 2.8 APO in a store once and was very impressed. If the money doesn´t shy you away, this is the one to chose.
Apr 05, 2011 at 12:13 PM
p.1 #5Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
The second to the last picture is incredible..... 
Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14 PM
p.1 #6Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
The Mamiya 200/2.8 APO or the 150/2.8 A might be something to look at as well.
Apr 05, 2011 at 03:30 PM
p.1 #7Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
As Doug (telyt) said, the 180 APO 2.8 is incredibly sharp wide open at f2.8 and still has very good performance when paired with the APO 2x extender to have a nice 360mm option handy.
The lens is definitely worth the money if you have it. Definitely smaller and lighter than the Mamiya 200 if you care about weight and size. I love my copy for landscape and wildlife shooting. It has gorgeous bokeh for close in wide open portrait shooting too.
The lens is definitely worth the money if you have it. Definitely smaller and lighter than the Mamiya 200 if you care about weight and size. I love my copy for landscape and wildlife shooting. It has gorgeous bokeh for close in wide open portrait shooting too.
Apr 05, 2011 at 03:46 PM
p.1 #8Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
RustyBug wrote:
The Mamiya 200/2.8 APO or the 150/2.8 A might be something to look at as well.
I have the Mamiya 150/2.8 A and the Leica R 180/3.4. I don't believe that the Mamiya is really in the same ball park in terms of resolution alone, not that it's bad at all, but the 180/3.4 is just a different lens. I've never really compared them, I might be wrong.
JJ
The Mamiya 200/2.8 APO or the 150/2.8 A might be something to look at as well.
I have the Mamiya 150/2.8 A and the Leica R 180/3.4. I don't believe that the Mamiya is really in the same ball park in terms of resolution alone, not that it's bad at all, but the 180/3.4 is just a different lens. I've never really compared them, I might be wrong.
JJ
Apr 05, 2011 at 03:53 PM
p.1 #9Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
wayne seltzer wrote:
... the 180 APO 2.8 ... has gorgeous bokeh for close in wide open portrait shooting too.
+1
The f/3.4 is an excellent lens especially considering the 1970s design but if you can afford the f/2.8 it's a much more versatile lens (IMHO). If the f/2.8 had a bit more resistance in the focussing ring and a built-in tripod collar like the 280mm f/4 APO has it would be just about perfect.
... the 180 APO 2.8 ... has gorgeous bokeh for close in wide open portrait shooting too.
+1
The f/3.4 is an excellent lens especially considering the 1970s design but if you can afford the f/2.8 it's a much more versatile lens (IMHO). If the f/2.8 had a bit more resistance in the focussing ring and a built-in tripod collar like the 280mm f/4 APO has it would be just about perfect.
Apr 05, 2011 at 04:13 PM
p.1 #10Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
thanks for the input! i think i may go for the 2.8 because i shoot a ton of portraits. speaking of which, my coveted f2 is for sale on the B&S thread...unfortunately, it is WAY out of my budget.
Apr 06, 2011 at 07:10 PM
p.1 #11Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
Here's a useful thread comparing the CV180 to the Leica 180 Telyt APO:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=27554&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=8647f4266567d89b092e2f676ccb33de
Many shots there to give you the flavor of what the Leica can and cannot do.
Lloyd Chambers sizes up the Leica 180/2.8 APO against the CV 180 APO and Nikkor 180 AIS ED among others on a D3x, accessible to those with a paid subscription to his site:
http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonLens180/index.html
My two cents....
I owned the 180/3,4 Telyt until recently and replaced it with the 180/2,8 APO. The commentary above is pretty spot on from my experience; focus ring on the 2,8 is not nearly as well damped as on the 3,4 (it was a bit of a surprise). The 3,4 needs to be stopped down to about 5.6 for peak performance too. Because the 3,4 is optimized for distant objects, focusing on them is a breeze. Lower contrast is evident from f/3,4 onward but as a result, details in shadows are remarkably well-defined in areas where they are otherwise lost when I shoot my Nikkor 180 ED AIS, 70-300 VRII or CV 180/4 APO. The Telyt does display amazing resolving power from a lens designed in the 70's but then it was meant for maritime surveillance. The top link details the Telyt's age in that the newer CV 180 APO has a clarity of image the Telyt can't match and the lack of contrast for day-to-day shooting does take it's toll on IQ. One thing I will disagree with is the Telyt's performance for near objects; I found it pretty average and the CV 180 blows it away.
The 180 Telyt is truly a specialty lens in that it's probably best suited for objects at distance/infinity focus, nature shooting, etc and especially in weaker or flatter lighting conditions. The 2,8 is tack sharp wide-open, in fact diffraction limited about there, is optically superior and better balanced for a variety of applications from portraits to landscapes. It is justifiably considered one of the finest teles ever designed, second only to the Leica 280/4 APO.
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=27554&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=8647f4266567d89b092e2f676ccb33de
Many shots there to give you the flavor of what the Leica can and cannot do.
Lloyd Chambers sizes up the Leica 180/2.8 APO against the CV 180 APO and Nikkor 180 AIS ED among others on a D3x, accessible to those with a paid subscription to his site:
http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonLens180/index.html
My two cents....
I owned the 180/3,4 Telyt until recently and replaced it with the 180/2,8 APO. The commentary above is pretty spot on from my experience; focus ring on the 2,8 is not nearly as well damped as on the 3,4 (it was a bit of a surprise). The 3,4 needs to be stopped down to about 5.6 for peak performance too. Because the 3,4 is optimized for distant objects, focusing on them is a breeze. Lower contrast is evident from f/3,4 onward but as a result, details in shadows are remarkably well-defined in areas where they are otherwise lost when I shoot my Nikkor 180 ED AIS, 70-300 VRII or CV 180/4 APO. The Telyt does display amazing resolving power from a lens designed in the 70's but then it was meant for maritime surveillance. The top link details the Telyt's age in that the newer CV 180 APO has a clarity of image the Telyt can't match and the lack of contrast for day-to-day shooting does take it's toll on IQ. One thing I will disagree with is the Telyt's performance for near objects; I found it pretty average and the CV 180 blows it away.
The 180 Telyt is truly a specialty lens in that it's probably best suited for objects at distance/infinity focus, nature shooting, etc and especially in weaker or flatter lighting conditions. The 2,8 is tack sharp wide-open, in fact diffraction limited about there, is optically superior and better balanced for a variety of applications from portraits to landscapes. It is justifiably considered one of the finest teles ever designed, second only to the Leica 280/4 APO.
Apr 06, 2011 at 08:53 PM
p.1 #12Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
well, i tried to pick up the 2.8 apo on ebay last night but the lost the bid, last second. bummer.
i have a question about the 3.4. i assume i can do 3/4 and full body shots perfectly well. i am curious about head shots and whether the distance would be sufficient to get comparable clarity and contrast to the 2.8. i would probably shoot either lens around 4 or 5.6.
i have a question about the 3.4. i assume i can do 3/4 and full body shots perfectly well. i am curious about head shots and whether the distance would be sufficient to get comparable clarity and contrast to the 2.8. i would probably shoot either lens around 4 or 5.6.
Apr 28, 2011 at 06:24 AM
p.1 #13Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
antifire wrote:
I am looking at 180mm lenses and was wondering how these two compared. The 3.4 is a lot cheaper! I just wanted to know how the sharpness, microcontrast, and CA compared. I would probably use either lens at f/5.6 or greater, so sharpness wide-open is not a huge concern.
Cheers,
Dan
I don't know about the 2.8 but the 3.5 is stunning at 5.6. That is it's optimum. There is really nothing to complain about wide open but I have rarely seen anything like it at 5.6.
I am looking at 180mm lenses and was wondering how these two compared. The 3.4 is a lot cheaper! I just wanted to know how the sharpness, microcontrast, and CA compared. I would probably use either lens at f/5.6 or greater, so sharpness wide-open is not a huge concern.
Cheers,
Dan
I don't know about the 2.8 but the 3.5 is stunning at 5.6. That is it's optimum. There is really nothing to complain about wide open but I have rarely seen anything like it at 5.6.
Apr 28, 2011 at 07:01 AM
p.1 #14Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
These samples make the f/3.4 one look really good:
http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-apo-telyt-r-3-4-180mm-long-time-experience-t35576.html
I wouldn't trade my Mamiya 645 A 200/2.8 APO for it though. I can't imagine how it could be sharper even wide open, at least on (not so demanding) my 5D. The colors of the Leica may be a bit more saturated.
Edited on Apr 28, 2011 at 08:11 AM · View previous versions
http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-apo-telyt-r-3-4-180mm-long-time-experience-t35576.html
I wouldn't trade my Mamiya 645 A 200/2.8 APO for it though. I can't imagine how it could be sharper even wide open, at least on (not so demanding) my 5D. The colors of the Leica may be a bit more saturated.
Edited on Apr 28, 2011 at 08:11 AM · View previous versions
Apr 28, 2011 at 07:40 AM
p.1 #15Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
So, just to put my mind at rest about this notion that the 180 3.4 is not so hot at closer distances, I set it up just now on a tripod and focused it at the minimum focus distance. Shot on my Sony a900 and converted in ACR with all default settings - no further pp or sharpening performed. I just don't see the softness in these 24MP 100% crops. Do you guys? Also, with a 180 and a minimum focus distance of around 8 feet, head and shoulder shots should be no issue at all. In fact, I think you wold find you needed to back up some!
Oerall shot:
http://www.gibranstudio.com/mfd.jpg
100% crops. Left is at 5.6, right wide open at 3.4. Taken at the 180 3.4's minimum focus distance.
http://www.gibranstudio.com/mfd180.jpg
Oerall shot:
http://www.gibranstudio.com/mfd.jpg
100% crops. Left is at 5.6, right wide open at 3.4. Taken at the 180 3.4's minimum focus distance.
http://www.gibranstudio.com/mfd180.jpg
Apr 28, 2011 at 07:49 AM
p.1 #16Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
yeah, it looks really good. given that the 2.8 is close to the diffraction limit wide-open, i suspect the 3.4 is probably sharper at 5.6. thanks for the examples, input, and links guys, i think im going to pick up the 3.4.
Apr 28, 2011 at 08:02 AM
p.1 #17Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
http://h-3.abload.de/img/telytb180_f3.4_1-2500_0fld.jpg
this shot is so good. it could be sharper than my 100ZE
this shot is so good. it could be sharper than my 100ZE
Apr 28, 2011 at 08:06 AM
p.1 #18Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
antifire wrote:
yeah, it looks really good. given that the 2.8 is close to the diffraction limit wide-open, i suspect the 3.4 is probably sharper at 5.6. thanks for the examples, input, and links guys, i think im going to pick up the 3.4.
I think the deal is that the 2.8 is at it's peak wide open - or close to it- whereas the 3.4 hit's it's peak at 5.6. At 5.6, I suspect the 3.4 version is at least as good as the 2.8 version which is already loosing some of it's wide open magic.
yeah, it looks really good. given that the 2.8 is close to the diffraction limit wide-open, i suspect the 3.4 is probably sharper at 5.6. thanks for the examples, input, and links guys, i think im going to pick up the 3.4.
I think the deal is that the 2.8 is at it's peak wide open - or close to it- whereas the 3.4 hit's it's peak at 5.6. At 5.6, I suspect the 3.4 version is at least as good as the 2.8 version which is already loosing some of it's wide open magic.
Apr 28, 2011 at 08:09 AM
p.1 #19Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
that's what i meant. it should be getting softer than it's full potential at like...2.8ish. cool
Apr 28, 2011 at 08:11 AM
p.1 #20Leica APO 180mm f3.4 vs f2.8
antifire wrote:
this shot is so good. it could be sharper than my 100ZE
Actually, I think the 3.4 is capable of even better then that distant example and I doubt any lens can outperform it at infinity - that is the distance it was optimized and designed for. The fact that it performs to such a decent level at it's minimum focus distance is actually quite amazing. I'm sure some lenses perform better close up but it's certainly not like the 3.4 version is soft.
this shot is so good. it could be sharper than my 100ZE
Actually, I think the 3.4 is capable of even better then that distant example and I doubt any lens can outperform it at infinity - that is the distance it was optimized and designed for. The fact that it performs to such a decent level at it's minimum focus distance is actually quite amazing. I'm sure some lenses perform better close up but it's certainly not like the 3.4 version is soft.
Apr 28, 2011 at 08:14 AM