Re: [Leica] 180 2.8 & 3.4 APO

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

At one time I owned, at the same time, both a 3.4 and a 2.8 180. I now only
have the 2.8 . The 3.4 is a nice lens but it was designed for surveillances
work and is optimized for distance photography. Also, it doesn't like
filters. So I chose to keep the 2.8, as it is, to all intents and purposes,
better than the 3.4 . It can easily handle any situation with ease, with or
without filters, and the difference in resolution, may or may not be
detectable. "Blows it out of the water" is really a gross overstatement.
There are many many factors that effect resolution. In the area that the
3.4 was designed for, it will outperform the 2.8, but it's almost splitting
hairs, IMHO. In almost all other situations, I believe the difference is,
for the most part, un-detectable. And as Eric said, being able to use both
the 1.4x APO and 2x APO extenders is a plus.

Just my humble opinion from a lot of real use. But realize that it's the
kind of photography that I do. If you are trying to photograph the markings
on a tank at 600 meters, choose the 3.4 APO. It's very strong in surveillance.

Jim

ps... please don't get me wrong. Those who own the 3.4 swear by it. Those
who own the 2.8 swear by it. Figure out how you are going to use it
(filters? closer than surveillance distances?). I simply gave you my
opinion to weigh-in with everything else.

:-)

At 07:48 PM 2/18/98 -0600, you wrote:
>At 08:22 AM 2/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>Yes, the 180/2.8 is a GREAT lens......I love it completely....
>>I have heard that the 180/3.4 blows it out of the water resolution-wise,
>>though.
>
>Yes, it does. It has a brilliance that is wonderful. But I like the 180 2.8
>and the fact it foucses closer and you can put the 1.4 apo converter on it.
>So now I just wait for the new one to make an appearance, a Doctor or
>Lawyer buys it, sells it six months later, uses it four times, and I get it
>for $1,000 off. 
>
>:-)
>
>Eric Welch
>