Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Aram Langhans <araml@naches.wednet.edu> wrote: > I have been vacillating between a 135/2.8 and a 180/? for awhile. I like > the compact size. The 135 is very close to my 100, so most likely a 180 > would be better. I agree. If your 100 is the APO-Elmarit, the 135 will be moslty redundant. > The other 180 flavors are quite a bit larger. He said the 180/4 is > a great performer. I think I have heard that before, that it is an > underrated lens. Does anyone have experience with this lens? Is it as > good as the sales person says? I am sure an APO is better, but the size > is a factor. I lived many years happily with a 200/4 for my Rollei SL-35, > so the f-4 is not a problem, for me. If it performs as well as the Zeiss > 200/4, I'll be happy. These photos of my late father-in-law were all made with the 180 Elmar-R at full aperture: http://home.earthlink.net/~telyt/hans/aug2001.html They're all quite sharp, and one was enlarged to poster size for his memorial. Compared with the 180 f/3.4 APO-Telyt, the Elmar isn't quite as easy to focus, possibly because of the smaller aperture or possibly because it doesn't have apochromatic correction. Of the photos of Hans, none were mis-focussed but because I didn't have the confidence with the focus as I do with the APO-Telyt, I took a second or so longer to focus. OTOH, the APO-Telyt has cruddy bokeh while the Elmar's bokeh is much more pleasing, and the Elmar's minimum focus distance is much closer. You can see my reviews of these lenses at: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/180r40.html http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/180A34.HTM Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html