Re: [Leica] Nikon 200mm f/2 vs Leica 180mm f/2

[Rob McElroy <idag@pce.net>]

Ok, I'm going to correct myself once and for all.  The 180mm f2.0 becomes a 360mm f4.0 when using the 2X converter.  Just ignore my previous "brain
frozen" correction


- -Rob

Rob McElroy wrote:

> 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

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html