Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> The Summilux design may be older and heavier but all I can suggest is > that you compare them yourself instead of making such comparisons off > the cuff. It's like saying the 100/3.5 Zeiss for Hasselblad is so > much better than the 150/4 that you might as well throw the 150 away. > :-) In my experience the two 75's are closer in performance than the > 100 and 150 Zeiss lenses. What's better than the 150/4 Zeiss Sonnar a very old design and my first lens is the modernly designed 180/4 Sonnar which I now use instead.. Most people have switched to that. Part of the reason is no one wants to NOT have the 120/4 macro And the 150 is too close to that. The 180 is a nice space from the 120. In the 60's the 120 was a 5.6 not f4 so it was less popular for general use. Such as fashion. Portraiture. My 150 had its real element gouged. The 100 and 180 are simply cutting edge optical design from Zeiss. Made to their standard price point and by them to indicate that some serious glass is inside of it. That and the build which is in the same class as Leica, Rodenstock, Schneider, and I forgot. Mark William Rabiner Though Richard Avedon normally used when he shot roll film a Rolleiflex twin lens with a Zeiss 2.8 lens he often needed something longer and he did not use a tele Rollei. But a Hasselblad with a 150 Sonnar on it. By the time the 180 came out he was mainly shooting sheet film.