The R kit is filling out nicely, of course the wallet is draining!

I have a big whole in the medium tele range (coverege ends at 70, picks up at 400). I also have about $500 tops left to spend. Seeing Andy's post on medium tele's, the performace of the 75-200, while less than the primes, was really quite good, and would most likely look good up to 8x12 or at least 7x10.5. Given my constraints, would this be a good buy at this price? I was also considering the 180 elmar, which was not tested but would also be in my price range.

thanks as always,

-- JDR (jrivera@vapop.ucsd.edu), January 16, 2002

Answers

My first suggestion would be a 3-cam 180/2.8 of the 1st generation, which is practically identical in performance to the later version, just heavier but it does have a tripod attachment which is a plus. You can often find these lenses in great condition for under $500. It will accept the 1.4xAPO teleconverter, for a 250/4 of outstanding quality.

The second suggestion, lighter in weight and slower, is the 180 Elmar.

Third option is a 135/2.8, which are well under $500. I know someone with one of those for sale also.

Fourth option is a 250/4.

Except for the 180/4, I know of people selling all three of the others, so e-mail me if you are interested and I'll make some inquiries.

In any case, I wouldn't consider the older zooms in the top 10 for anyone's R want-list. They are fine lenses, but not better than the Minolta lenses they in fact are, yet many times more expensive.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 16, 2002.

Don Chatterton is advertising the following: 180/2.8 Elmarit-R mint-/exc+ for $895

180/4.0 Elmar-R mint-/exc+ for $595

so it looks like you can have your choice of options. Good luck. LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), January 16, 2002.

I suggest a 90mm Summicron or, as the others suggest, one of the 180s rather than the zoom.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 16, 2002.

I use the 90 elmarit E55 vers. and the 180 4.0. The elmarit or the summicron 90 can be found reasonably and occasionally I see the 180s on ebay. I'd skip the zoom unless you can afford the 80-200 4.0. Another way to go is you can find a nice 135 2.8 which is out of fashion right now for $3-400. It is a great lens. Good luck!

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 16, 2002.

Doug Herr was selling his 180 f/4 recently - it's a green Safari - a great match for John Chan's army jacket!

Personally, now that I have the SL/400, I'm STILL trying to make up my mind about the medium tele. I've never been a zoom fan, but have discovered how useful one MIGHT be especially in that focal length range and esp. for landscape photography. Here in the Rockies there are vantage points where a 1-2 inch zoom to adjust the composition would save me a 1-2 mile hike with a prime lens. I also prefer 2-ring zooms, myself, but the current 80-200 is still running $1100 used - an excellent price, but twice your budget and more than I have available right now.

I'd like to test the 180 f/4 myself before deciding - my impression from other reviewers (Doug Herr - you out there?) is that it's performance is basically identical to the pre-APO f/2.8, but without the extra stop. Speed is another factor - I don't HAVE to have f/2.8, but it does come in handy with Velvia.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 16, 2002.

Andy

I would say you are right about the 180/4. I had one and thought it an excellent compact lens. I replaced with the 180/3.4 which is (no surprises) better but heavier.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 17, 2002.

I'd like to test the 180 f/4 myself before deciding - my impression from other reviewers (Doug Herr - you out there?) is that it's performance is basically identical to the pre-APO f/2.8, but without the extra stop. Speed is another factor - I don't HAVE to have f/2.8, but it does come in handy with Velvia.

I'm still undecided about selling the 180 f/4. I don't think I've given it a thorough test yet. I love the compact size and the close focus, so far (with my limited testing) the image quality has been fine. I'd be selling because I'm finding most of my subjects are in abysmally dim light, I presently have a loaner 180 f/3.4 APO, for how long I don't know, and I'd like to be able to put the 180 on a monpod/shoulder stock combination like I do with the 250/400/560 Telyts. With the STA-1 and 180 APO-Elmarit-R I can do this. Oh, my wallet's also taken a beating lately (for example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=524902).

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), January 17, 2002.

Hi Doug,

"my wallet's also taken a beating lately (for example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=524902 -> click here)."

You got a nice shot of that new member to your family with the 280mm/4.8 Telyt (Visoflex?). I'm seriously consider getting that lens for my SL and R7 to extend my reflex to the 300mm focal range. Erwin's comments about the 280mm/4.8 seems to be that it needs to be stopped down to f8? What's your field experiences with that lens? Thanks.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.net), January 17, 2002.

280mm/4.8 Telyt (Visoflex?). I'm seriously consider getting that lens for my SL and R7 to extend my reflex to the 300mm focal range. Erwin's comments about the 280mm/4.8 seems to be that it needs to be stopped down to f8? What's your field experiences with that lens?

This is a new lens for me. I had another one a few years ago but I sold it when a late-model 250 R came up at a great price. The "new" 280 came with the Televit-R focussing device. I use my long lenses hand-held or monopodded most of the time so I've never considered stopping it down.

What I like about the Visoflex focussing mount (with R adapter) lens: good optical performance, GREAT bokeh, good rotating tripod mount. I don't like the slow focussing or the minimum focus distance of 11.5' or so. I ran into that WAY too often with smaller birds. The Televit lets the 280 focus as close as 6' or so, a big difference, and the Televit allows both quick and precise focus. The problem with using the 280 lens head on the Televit is that the adapter needed to fit 'em together is very scarce. Another problem with the 280 4.8 is that it's very succeptible to flare when sunlight hits the front element.

When I bought the first 280, the Leica lenses in that range that I could afford were the early 250-R and the 280 f/4.8. Of these only the 280 f/4.8 has a rotating tripod collar, very important for use with monopod or especially with shoulder stock. I prefer the late 250's quicker focus, closer minimum focus distance and lack of adapters to make it work with my SL, so when I found a cosmetically ugly but optically and mechanically great 250 I swapped. Bonuses of the late 250 are its excellent resistance to flare and seamless use of the shoulder stock. Here's a 250 photo.

I still haven't worked out how to combine the monopod with the Televit's shoulder stock as I have with my other long lenses. I feel the weight and operation of the Televit makes it less hand-holdable than the 250 or the f/6.8 Telyts but once I get it rigged up with the monopod AND shoulder stock I'll have lots of fun with it.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), January 17, 2002.

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and, generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

-- Joe Barbano (joseph.barbano@symmetron.com), January 31, 2002.

For what its worth Ive been using a Leitz Wetzlar 75-200 f4.5 on my Leica RE for about a year. I purchased it in mint condition for 400.00 and felt it has been one of the better buys Ive managed in my photo gear acquisitions. Its compact, light, uses 55mm filters, and is very very sharp based on the 8x12 color prints Ive made from 400ASA film. It is sharper than the old (fat) style 250f4 Telyt that I used to use by a good margin. I admit the new 80-200 f4 is a superb lens by all accounts, Ive been tempted to trade up, but even used it costs three to four times as much. I would be glad to send some JPGs to anyone who is interested, scanned negs from the 75-200 zoom. If anyone has comparison shots with the older zooms vs the new one from Kyocera I would love to see them.

-- Ron Dixon (RDixon@stny.rr.com), January 31, 2002.