Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>What evidence do you have to make such statements. I have the old 180mm lens >and use it often as a spotting scope in conjunction with a Leica ocular. I >am glad that this lens has a bad reputation. It is heavy, but relatively >inexpensive and can be mounted on a tripod. IMHO, the photos are spectacular. > >Chris At 09:51 AM 11/8/97 -0800, I wrote: > >I had an old 180 and an old 250. I had the opportunity to buy new versions >at a VERY good price. A store was going out of business. I had both old and >new for a while. I also had a 180/3.4 . The new 180/2.8, FOR ME, gives me >sharper, more contrast, cleaner colors, etc, than the old 180, OR THE >180/3.4 . The new 250 was also better than the old 250. I sold both 250's >and the 180/3.4 and bought a 350. Which I love and would NEVER sell. Very >very fine lens. > >Jim > You have to realize that this is a subjective test. Not a scientific test. It could very well be that the lens formula for both old and new are identical. Maybe only the coating is different. Maybe everything is different. Maybe nothing is different. Neither do I know nor do I care. I care about what works for me, what my results are, and my confidence level of a particular piece of equipment. I personally think the new 180 is better than the old 180 and better than the 180/3.4 . It works better for me. Jim