Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 180 2.8 & 3.4 APO
From: Five Senses Productions <fls@5senses.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:31:16 -0800

Most of the time I use the 180 NOW it is for shooting models....usually
between
3 and 20 meters.  I guess I will stick with the 2.8 for now...although a
2.8 APO
may make me change my mind!

At 09:29 PM 2/17/98 -0800, you wrote:
>At one time I owned, at the same time, both a 3.4 and a 2.8 180. I now only
>have the 2.8 . The 3.4 is a nice lens but it was designed for surveillances
>work and is optimized for distance photography. Also, it doesn't like
>filters. So I chose to keep the 2.8, as it is, to all intents and purposes,
>better than the 3.4 . It can easily handle any situation with ease, with or
>without filters, and the difference in resolution, may or may not be
>detectable. "Blows it out of the water" is really a gross overstatement.
>There are many many factors that effect resolution. In the area that the
>3.4 was designed for, it will outperform the 2.8, but it's almost splitting
>hairs, IMHO. In almost all other situations, I believe the difference is,
>for the most part, un-detectable. And as Eric said, being able to use both
>the 1.4x APO and 2x APO extenders is a plus.
>
>Just my humble opinion from a lot of real use. But realize that it's the
>kind of photography that I do. If you are trying to photograph the markings
>on a tank at 600 meters, choose the 3.4 APO. It's very strong in
surveillance.
>
>Jim
>
>ps... please don't get me wrong. Those who own the 3.4 swear by it. Those
>who own the 2.8 swear by it. Figure out how you are going to use it
>(filters? closer than surveillance distances?). I simply gave you my
>opinion to weigh-in with everything else.
>
>:-)
>
>At 07:48 PM 2/18/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>At 08:22 AM 2/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>>Yes, the 180/2.8 is a GREAT lens......I love it completely....
>>>I have heard that the 180/3.4 blows it out of the water resolution-wise,
>>>though.
>>
>>Yes, it does. It has a brilliance that is wonderful. But I like the 180 2.8
>>and the fact it foucses closer and you can put the 1.4 apo converter on it.
>>So now I just wait for the new one to make an appearance, a Doctor or
>>Lawyer buys it, sells it six months later, uses it four times, and I get it
>>for $1,000 off. 
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Eric Welch
>> 
> 


Francesco Sanfilippo,
Five Senses Productions
webmaster@5senses.com

http://www.5senses.com/