Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sam, I have owned and used the Nikkor 200mm f2.0 but not the Leitz 180mm f2.0. The Nikkor unfortunately, has never been a stellar performer wide-open at f2.0, despite the high price and ED glass. Nikkor's 180 f2.8 was far superior in wide-open image quality at 1/4 the price. But, if you needed an f2 200mm on your Nikon, there really wasn't another choice in the 1980's. The lens suffered from poor detail contrast (Erwin calls it micro-contrast) wide open, and the images (even in the center) had a distinct softness to them. Nikon's 135mm f2.0 is far superior, with superb detail contrast wide open. It is probably Nikon's most underrated lens optically. After reading Erwin's report on the Leitz Summicron 180 f2.0, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to recommend the Leitz 180 over the Nikkor 200. In fact, now I want one. It's a great portrait-focal-length with wonderful background blurring abilities (from the focal length and its optical bokeh) - -- plus, superb low-light capabilities and just enough "reach" for most telephoto situations (unless you're shooting sports or bald eagles). Put on a 2X converter and you've got a very capable 360 f2.8. Good luck and please report back with the results. Regards, Rob McElroy Buffalo, NY Sam Carleton wrote: > The lens I am really looking at is the Leica 180mm on a R8. I am > looking at both the f/2.8 and f/2. How does the f/2 hold up at > apertures smaller then f/5.6? Has anyone ever compared how Leica 180mm > f/2 to the Nikkor 200/2? If so, how does the "bokah" compare? - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html