Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:41 AM 11/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >Jim Brick wrote: > >The very reasons I kept my 180/2.8 when I got my 70-180. I really like >my >180/2.8 . Ounce for ounce, I believe it's one of the finest 180's >available. > >Jim... > >To quote Yoda, "No, there is another..." > >I newly have the 180 2.0 Apo Summicron, a hoss of a lens, that I'm just >learning to use. Have only shot a half dozen rolls thus far, and had >intended to report to the group when I had developed some more formed >opinions. > >Early impressions (no news here) is that the lens is v. sharp, easy to >focus on the R8, fun to shoot wide open (just shot half a roll on a >cloudy day at 2.0, for fun), close focuses to +/- 4 feet, and wide open >has HIGHLY limited depth of field. > >FWIW, this lens was the highest scoring ColorFoto ever tested (no mean >feat?) and the mechanical quality certainly is there. Feels like a chunk >of granite. Have been using a monopod and both hands to carry the combo. >To date, though, I've been very impressed. > >More when I know more, in a few months. > >David W. Almy Of course, you are correct. But that's why I said "ounce for ounce". For the size & weight, the 180/2.8 is a fantastic lens. For somewhat *more* weight, the 180/2.0 is better. I don't have one, but that's what they say. Jim