[LRflex] Re: Leica R 80-200 F4.0, or 180mm F2.8 - Advice needed

  • From: David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:45:01 -0700

At 6/3/2009, you wrote:



Hello,

I've been lurking on the list for a good while and have gleaned some
good knowledge as an observer and I thank everyone for that.  I have a
dilemma as I am in a position to upgrade my Leica 70-210 F4.0 to some
thing a little better (although I wouldn't mind some comment on this
lens as well)

I have heard that the 80-200 f4.0 is a great lens and great value and it
seems to be a substantial upgrade on the 70-210, however I am also
considering the 180mm f2.8 prime as I enjoy shallow depth of field in my
work and sometimes will use the focal length in low light situations.

As well as the 70-210 I have a 35-70 Elmarit, a 50mm Summicron and a
90mm Summicron.  Not sure which way to go with the choice of 180 prime
or 80-200 zoom.  Any comments/advice would be appreciated.

Cameras I can mount the lens on are R5, R7, Digilux 3 via an adapter and
interestingly enough a Sigma SD14 with a modified R mount.  I purchased
the latter after someone on the list mentioned that the Sigma was
available with an R mount.  I have not been dissapoited with the
results.  I believe the Foveon sensor is superior to the Bayer variants
in most digital platforms, however one does have to live with the crop
factor as this is not a full frame sensor.  Happy to post some examples
for those interested but not sure where to post them.

Walter



Good Morning, Water, and welcome to the Zoo!
I cannot speak for the 180 Elamarit, but I had the 180 Elmar (f4) prior to purchasing the 80~200/4 and the zoom is a significantly sharper lens ... something which should not be possible with a zoom.
It is as free from noticeable distortions as any of the primes. As for shallow DOF ... at max zoom, the DOF will be calculated to be more at f4 than f2.8, but in practical terms, we're talking fractions of an inch (millimeters) and they won't be noticeably different. So, while the prime gains you more speed, in low light, the zoom offers more flexibility, in framing and for travel.
I have written two articles on the 80~200/4 for the LHSA's magazine, Viewfinder. If you wish to read them, go to http://www.main.furnfeather.net/, and click on "Articles" link, on the left.
Click on "Central American Birding" and "Hunting small game ... with a zoom lens". You'll find a lot of 'general purpose" photos, taken with the Vario in "The Back Streets of Paris". All articles download as pdfs.
As Doug said, it's really a matter of choice/personal taste. Both are very fine lenses, by any standards. I went for the zoom, because I've had the good fortune to travel a lot, and a small kit is a prime consideration. 

Like others, I'll be interested to see your photos, on the Sigma SD-14.

So, welcome, once again!

Cheers!
---
David Young
Logan Lake, BC

Wildlife Photos: www.furnfeather.net
Rodeo Photos: www.galleries.furnfeather.net
Personal Website: www.main.furnfeather.net

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. leicareflex
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2009