Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks....I think I agree that the 2.8 is a better all-around lens for the 180 length. Now I need to decide whether I need 180, or want 300! At 08:59 PM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote: ><<<I saw a used MINT 180/2.8 R lens at my local Leica dealer....I meant >MINT.....the guy never used this lens.....they want $1300. Is this a good >used price for this lens? How is the performance of this lens compared to >the 3.4? I know the 2.0 is the best 180, but which of the remaining 180s >takes second place? Does anyone have this lens, and can anyone offer >ratings?>>>>>> > >Francesco, > >I've used both the 3.4 and the 2.8. Both very fine glass the, the 3.4 does >it's thing in relation to being developed for "spy satellites" or something >like that. So the glass is immpecable. > >The 2.8 is the better of the two in relation to focusing closer and you can >use a 1.4 and 2X extender on it. The 3.4 you can only use with the 2X, >which I found to be a problem, as well as not being able to focus as close >as the 2.8. > >The price I don't have any idea. > >But I guess if you have the dollars to buy and the price is right, I'd >recommend you go for it! You can't go wrong, because if you don't like it, >you can always sell it! :) > >ted > Francesco Sanfilippo, Five Senses Productions webmaster@5senses.com http://www.5senses.com/