Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:22 AM 12/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >LUG-devotees: > >I have recently purchased a chrome R8 and a 1.4/35 and a 1.4/80. I want >a slightly longer lens for work, travel, and both hand-held/tripod use. > Which 180 version is better for these things? I have heard good reviews >about the 3.4, but I think I would prefer the 2.8 for the extra >speed......the 2.0 would be nice but looks bulky and heavy. > At one time I owned both the 180 3.4 APO and the 2.8 (current version). After using both for awhile, I sold the 3.4 APO. If I remember correctly, it was designed for military surveillance. It basically has been optimized for this use. It does not like filters (I use a polarizer much of the time), it doesn't seem to be really great at close distances, and seems to be prone to flair (for instance, with the sun in the frame.) My 180 2.8 is a sterling performer, tack sharp, close, far, with or without filters, minimal flare with sun in the frame, etc... I cannot find a single fault with the 180 2.8 . And I found too many faults with the 3.4 . IMHO, the 180 2.8 (current version) is a much better universally useful lens. Instead of choosing a 50 for your trip, I personally would be looking at a wide wide angle. 19, 21, or 24. If you are going to get a 50, think about the 60mm macro instead. Great lens for the marketplace, seashore, places with interesting close-ups. Plus, it's a great general purpose 50mm replacement. Jim