Re: [Leica] 180 2.8 R-lens - any experiences?

[ted grant <75501.3002@compuserve.com>]

Eric Welch wrote:

<<They don't make a 300. The 280 2.8 or 4 Apo telyts are fabulous lenses,>>

Francesco wrote: 
<<<What about 400, 500, and 800?  Are those actually 380, 480, and 780?>>>>

Hi Gang,

For every lens someone has a story.

In 1984 when the Leica 280 2.8 arrived in Canada I was one of the first to
get one, it was/is a fabulous lens. But the question I had  was, "How come
if everybody else made a 300, why the hell would Leica only make a 280?
Damn they're always screwing-up some how." :)

A few months later I was in Germany and just dying to get a shot at
somebody about 300mm vs 280mm. It seemed so stupid that they had thrown
away 20mm on such a wonderful lens and Nikon and Canon had 300's.  So when
the time came to talk to an engineer I asked the question.

The response was, " In the computer it is found that 280mm is the preferred
focal length inrelation to an f. 2.8 lens."  I in my usual stupid manner
said, "You've got to be kidding, I mean you make our lenses 20mm shorter
than Nikon and I get my ass shot off covering sports for a lousy 20mm
because of some stupid computer! Jeeesh no wonder you guys lost WW2!"

Way to go Teddy baby!   Right there I was in deep doo doo and a couple of
guys weren't happy campers, "Well you can always change to Nikon!" in the
most sarcastic tone you can imagine.:)

I said, "I guess that wasn't too bright, sorry!" and we shook hands. 

Now that Eric in his great wisdom :) has told us that all along Nikon
really was only 280mm I don't feel so bad about some of those "just not
quite tight enough frames and if I only had another 20mm!" I just feel bad
I got my ass shot off for some other reason. OK never mind any smart ass
remarks! :)

So that's my tale of why the 280mm is a 280mm 2.8! :)

ted