Re: [Leica] 180's

[inyoung@jps.net]

Hi Jim,

 Is this true for both of 180/2.8 (old and later)?

Regards,
David

At 08:10 PM 11/01/98 -0800, you wrote:
>I have a personal comment about the 180's.
>
>My first 180 was a 2.8 Elmarit. It was great, but was stolen in SFO after
>it's first use. I was anticipating using my 1.4 and 2.0 APO extenders.
>However, KSP had a used mint (almost new) 180 3.4 so I bought it. It was a
>fine lens, but I soon learned that it indeed was a special purpose lens. It
>was made for military survalence. Survalence is at a distance. I noticed
>that the 3.4 was very very good at distance photography, but at close
>distances, it was not as good. The second problem that I noticed about the
>3.4 is that it did not like filters. I have been in a situation where I
>could not get sharp focus through a particular filter. I talked to some KSP
>folks who had heard the same story from other photographers. I do use
>filters. Well, KSP got a mint used 180 2.8 in stock and I bought it. So now
>I had both 2.8 and 3.4 180's. I had both for several months and I came to a
>quick conclusion that the 2.8 was a far better general purpose 180 lens. It
>loves filters, loves close-ups, loves 1.4 and 2x APO extenders, and is
>really really sharp. Naked, for distance use (such as survalence) the 180
>3.4 APO is indeed a steller lens. But for all around use, without
>compromise, I personally have found that the 180/2.8 to be a much better
>lens. There are no limitations. I sold the 3.4 .
>
>FWIW... This is my personal finding.
>
>Jim
>
>PS... I know there are new APO 180's now, but whew... they are big! My E67
>180/2.8 (and at 252/4 & 360/5.6) is/are outstanding lens/es.
>
>