I am interested in upgrading my present VE 80-200 to the "legendary" VE 70-180. I am impressed by the superior APO-like pictures that I have seen from the latter as well as by its speed. I realize that the VE 70-180 is about 800mg heavier but I already use a tripod for most telephoto shots anyway. The new lens, like the VE 80-200, will used for travel photography. Is it really worth it? Is there a better alternative? Thank you

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), January 13, 2002

Answers

I can't comment from personal experience on the relative performance of these two lenses, but I am of the mind that there is a point of hairsplitting in comparing superb optics in 35mm format beyond which one really needs to think about moving up to medium format to see an image gain worthy of the additional cost (and in this case, weight also) and from what others have told me, these two lenses fall into that category.

I bought the 80-200/4 on the heels of selling my 80-200/2.8 AF-S Nikkor. I am not attempting to compare the latter to the 70-180 APO optically. However the 70-180 is an even larger, heavier lens than the Nikkor, and I found the Nikkor oppressive in that respect while travelling. For that reason, more often than not the Nikkor stayed in the hotel safe while the optically-inferior old 70-210/4 I brought as a backup ended up being what I carried out for the day's shooting. And, surprisingly, when I got back and compared images, many of the old 70-210 shots were, on average, actually *sharper* because I'd been able to handhold it steadier than the 80-200/2.8. That type of lens really needs a tripod or at worst, a table-top or monopod. The only such lens I'd consider for handholding would be the Canon 70- 210IS.

So while a lens-tester might correctly identify the 70-180 as possessing superior performance characteristics, as a travel lens "your results may vary". I am extremely happy with my 80- 200/4. In addition to the fact that I can handhold it steadier for longer periods of time, it is more comfortable to walk around all day with, and much less attention-grabbing and intimidating. Again these are my subjective opinions as a travel photographer, and not the result of exhaustive lens testing worthy of a Compendium.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 13, 2002.

As you very well know Albert, that extra stop is irreplaceable at longer focal lengths, even if you systematically use a tripod (the rest of the world still moves while you are fixed). Especially for travel photography, where you like to use high res film and capture any moment of the day or evening. So, if you are physically fit, do not hesitate, go for the 70-180.

Not being that brave, I resort to a 180mm f2.8 apo-elmarit fixed focal. Immensely hand holdable, superlative quality and not nearly as heavy/cumbersome on camera. Only down side is that you have to carry the tripod back and forward to fine tune framing.

If I do not have the M along, I also carry the 100 macro, but I would suggest a recent 90mm elmarit-R instead. Superb "apo-like" performance, and not a punishment to carry ! On top of that similarly compact 50 'cron or 'lux or 35 'cron that is always in the pocket, of course, for handheld indoors or after dusk shots.... ;-)

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.

Well I think that you will probably notice the difference. Fast lenses are always better assuming you do not mind the weight. This lens is legendary in quality. If I had $5000 to spare and was after a no-holds-barred zoom for landscape use, I would buy it. This way you could leave your 80/90/100/180 at home and just have one lens that does all things to all men. By the way weight is only a small part of how well you can handhold a lens. The most important feature of a lens is its focal length with respect to what shutter speed will work to give sharp shots. A light 180mm will not necessarily produce sharper shots handheld than a heavy version. In fact often a heavy version can be held steadier. And with this lens you have a stop to spare allowing a faster shutter speed, should you want to engage in handheld photography. So I see no reason why this lens would be any harder to handhold than the 80-200 (or even the 100mm APO). It is not THAT heavy. Still this is a heavy lens if you anticipate lugging it around all day (i.e. not in a car).

An alternative might be to get a 90mm Elmarit-R and 180 f2.8 APO or even the 100mm/180 APO route. This might be more flexible in some ways: when you do not want a zoom you can take just one lens which would be much lighter and the quality would be the same. The trouble is that if you were to go the 100/180mm APO route it is about the same price as the 70-180. You need to try it on the camera and think what you want. As you already use a tipod for most of your shots, I would seriously consider buying it. I rarely use a tripod for my R stuff so the 90mm/180 combo works better for me: and more importantly I can't afford it.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.